Van Dijk

What so you think that VVD should have tried harder?,for what purpose?, Hey hes got nothing to prove playing for us in the end because it was a done deal.We as a club roll over and let the next big thing go at the earliest oppertunity, we get just to claw more money sooner rather than later.I wish him the very best of luck .ITS NOT US A S FANS THAT SELL THE PLAYERS ITS THE AWFUL BOARD OF DIRECTORS. We are the only thing thats constant in football nowadays US loyal fans,Sky and the Oil tycoons looking to fritter away some tax loop hole money are the CANCER of the game .So yes good luck to the bloke we must have all known this was going to happen as it will do for LEMINA next year.

Lol you think it's ok for a professional sportsman not to try?

Ignore the fact that he was paid (in those 20 weeks) more than the vast majority of this country will earn in a lifetime to actually put in some effort, but for example what about everyone betting on the game. it is assumed the people taking part will actually be making an effort to win the game.

He cheated a lot of people during that spell. It may be naive to expect sportsmen to try every game, however that's what should happen whether they want to be there or not..it's called being a professional. I, for one think, that what he did was wrong but I suppose ethics are personal so you may think that it's acceptable.

What so you think that VVD should have tried harder?,for what purpose?, Hey hes got nothing to prove playing for us in the end because it was a done deal.We as a club roll over and let the next big thing go at the earliest oppertunity, we get just to claw more money sooner rather than later.I wish him the very best of luck .ITS NOT US A S FANS THAT SELL THE PLAYERS ITS THE AWFUL BOARD OF DIRECTORS. We are the only thing thats constant in football nowadays US loyal fans,Sky and the Oil tycoons looking to fritter away some tax loop hole money are the CANCER of the game .So yes good luck to the bloke we must have all known this was going to happen as it will do for LEMINA next year.

Coutinho tried, he was in the same position. Liverpool played itwell in respect they signed VVD and then sold the star. We had 3 weeks warning sold our star player and have nobody lined up. We did have Ralph come out and tell us that we are a small club

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Full text here:

 

Southampton fans hoping for a spending spree this month after the £74 million sale of Virgil van Dijk to Liverpool are going to be disappointed as the club’s initial windfall from their record transfer deal will be less than £17 million. Although Southampton are guaranteed to receive £70 million for Van Dijk, with a further £4 million due in bonus payments if the Holland defender meets certain performance targets, the way the transfer has been structured means that Liverpool’s payments will be made in three equal instalments over the next three years beginning with a £23.3 million downpayment this month.

 

Southampton’s cash flow will be further limited by the fact that Celtic’s sell-on fee for Van Dijk — 10 per cent of Southampton’s profit on a player they paid £11.5 million for three years ago — is due immediately, so almost £6 million of Liverpool’s initial payment will go to Celtic Park. In addition agent fees must also be settled immediately, leaving Southampton with a limited transfer kitty as Mauricio Pellegrino aims to overhaul a squad that is only above the relegation places on goal difference. Southampton are planning to reinvest all the Van Dijk money into the playing squad, but will have to do so over several transfer windows.

I think this report can be seen to be what it is, utter bullocks. Just the last sentence shows the author knows nothing about how transfers work. I'm sticking by what we were told that it was £70m up front. The good news is that the Celtic cut is only 10% on the profit, so a bit less than expected (had assumed it was a straight 10% but really that was a silly assumption).

By the way do we have a sell on clause for Walcott, do we get a discount if we buy him back? (just kidding)

I think this report can be seen to be what it is, utter bullocks. Just the last sentence shows the author knows nothing about how transfers work. I'm sticking by what we were told that it was £70m up front. The good news is that the Celtic cut is only 10% on the profit, so a bit less than expected (had assumed it was a straight 10% but really that was a silly assumption).

 

By the way do we have a sell on clause for Walcott, do we get a discount if we buy him back? (just kidding)

Wasn't Walcott's sell-on fee negotiated away when we were desperate for dosh?

I think this report can be seen to be what it is, utter bullocks. Just the last sentence shows the author knows nothing about how transfers work. I'm sticking by what we were told that it was £70m up front. The good news is that the Celtic cut is only 10% on the profit, so a bit less than expected (had assumed it was a straight 10% but really that was a silly assumption).

 

By the way do we have a sell on clause for Walcott, do we get a discount if we buy him back? (just kidding)

You clearly don't read Matt Hughes often. His column is full of interesting insight on how clubs operate.

Full text here:

 

Southampton fans hoping for a spending spree this month after the £74 million sale of Virgil van Dijk to Liverpool are going to be disappointed as the club’s initial windfall from their record transfer deal will be less than £17 million. Although Southampton are guaranteed to receive £70 million for Van Dijk, with a further £4 million due in bonus payments if the Holland defender meets certain performance targets, the way the transfer has been structured means that Liverpool’s payments will be made in three equal instalments over the next three years beginning with a £23.3 million downpayment this month.

 

Southampton’s cash flow will be further limited by the fact that Celtic’s sell-on fee for Van Dijk — 10 per cent of Southampton’s profit on a player they paid £11.5 million for three years ago — is due immediately, so almost £6 million of Liverpool’s initial payment will go to Celtic Park. In addition agent fees must also be settled immediately, leaving Southampton with a limited transfer kitty as Mauricio Pellegrino aims to overhaul a squad that is only above the relegation places on goal difference. Southampton are planning to reinvest all the Van Dijk money into the playing squad, but will have to do so over several transfer windows.

That doesn't make sense. Putting to one side the issue of paying Celtic, why won't our incoming transfers be structured the same way?

Your answer is there. That payment and the settlement of agents' fees would take a big lump out of the first payment. If an incoming transfer is structured the same way then we would have to pay a third of the price up front.

Your answer is there. That payment and the settlement of agents' fees would take a big lump out of the first payment. If an incoming transfer is structured the same way then we would have to pay a third of the price up front.

Watching VvD's debut for Liverpool this evening, as he ran towards the fans after scoring, tapping the badge on his chest. What a prime summary of the state of affairs as to where the sport stands today. Mercenary individuals out to squeeze every penny out of their careers. 'Loyalty' only exists amongst the fanbase.

Were you surprised though? Your last sentence is spot on and why would it be any different. He isn't a Saints fan. To footballers it is just a job, and their attitude is much the same as most people with a job. Bear in mind most footballers are millennials, that tells you everything you need to know. Loyalty is key to the baby boomers and to a lesser extent to generation X's, but it pretty much dies out thereafter.

I think fans need a dose of reality.

Bear in mind most footballers are millennials, that tells you everything you need to know. Loyalty is key to the baby boomers and to a lesser extent to generation X's, but it pretty much dies out thereafter.

Bloody hell, mate.

No, that's not my answer right there. If that was the only relevant point, then the article you quoted wouldn't have waffled on about our incoming monies being spread over years if it wasn't considered relevant to their point that we wouldn't be spending big this window.

Whatever, in terms of cash in the bank we won't have much from the first payment and yet we shall have to pay upfront for any incoming transfers.

Whatever, in terms of cash in the bank we won't have much from the first payment and yet we shall have to pay upfront for any incoming transfers.

No reason why we can't pay in instalments just like Liverpool are for us so wont make any difference.

Whatever, in terms of cash in the bank we won't have much from the first payment and yet we shall have to pay upfront for any incoming transfers.

No reason why we can't pay in instalments just like Liverpool are for us so wont make any difference.

Of course we can pay in instalments it's just that in VVD's case the first instalment from Liverpool is greatly reduced whereas if we but someone in three instalments we shall have to find the cash to pay the first one upfront.

Hardly "whatever" is it, unless you're just missing the point.

What point is that? Let's take a rough look at the figures.

Liverpool 'give' us three payments of, say, £33m.

Out of the first payment we have to pay Celtic £7m, agents at £20m (say) leaving £6m in the bank.

So over 3 years we receive £7m, £33m, £33m

We buy a new player (or payers) for £36m in three instalments.

We have to pay out £12m, £12m, £12m

So we're quids in for years two and three but we're out of pocket now.

Now these are very rough figures and these transfers are much more complicated that this but the principle is the same. Basically, all our costs relating to the sale are paid out in the first year in one lump.

(If any of this story is true)

What point is that? Let's take a rough look at the figures.

 

Liverpool 'give' us three payments of, say, £33m.

Out of the first payment we have to pay Celtic £7m, agents at £20m (say) leaving £6m in the bank.

So over 3 years we receive £7m, £33m, £33m

 

We buy a new player (or payers) for £36m in three instalments.

We have to pay out £12m, £12m, £12m

 

So we're quids in for years two and three but we're out of pocket now.

 

Now these are very rough figures and these transfers are much more complicated that this but the principle is the same. Basically, all our costs relating to the sale are paid out in the first year in one lump.

 

(If any of this story is true)

Why would they give us 99 million though. Have I missed some detail or other?

Why would they give us 99 million though. Have I missed some detail or other?

You're right, thanks, it's probably more like three payments of £23m. The actual numbers are irrelevant to the process. Basically, Celtic's cut and the agent fees come out of the first tranche so that money is not available to us.

Full text here:

 

Southampton fans hoping for a spending spree this month after the £74 million sale of Virgil van Dijk to Liverpool are going to be disappointed as the club’s initial windfall from their record transfer deal will be less than £17 million. Although Southampton are guaranteed to receive £70 million for Van Dijk, with a further £4 million due in bonus payments if the Holland defender meets certain performance targets, the way the transfer has been structured means that Liverpool’s payments will be made in three equal instalments over the next three years beginning with a £23.3 million downpayment this month.

 

Southampton’s cash flow will be further limited by the fact that Celtic’s sell-on fee for Van Dijk — 10 per cent of Southampton’s profit on a player they paid £11.5 million for three years ago — is due immediately, so almost £6 million of Liverpool’s initial payment will go to Celtic Park. In addition agent fees must also be settled immediately, leaving Southampton with a limited transfer kitty as Mauricio Pellegrino aims to overhaul a squad that is only above the relegation places on goal difference. Southampton are planning to reinvest all the Van Dijk money into the playing squad, but will have to do so over several transfer windows.

Why? If Liverhampton can buy him and spread the payments over 3 years, surely we can do the same sort of thing. It is whether the club's owners want to do that, or use future income to deleverage a bit.

Wasn't Walcott's sell-on fee negotiated away when we were desperate for dosh?

Think we did that with Bale, took a million to do away with the sell on fee...?

Think we did that with Bale, took a million to do away with the sell on fee...?

But we did get Tommy Fourpast as well. Brilliant deal .... 4 years salary and never played a competitive game and we missed out on a whopping % sell on fee when Bale went to Madrid

To be fair to the club, Spurs had us over a barrel, and without the Million we'd have gone out of existence. Same thing with Theo's situation at Arsenal ... instant cash instead of spread out payments just to stay alive.

What point is that? Let's take a rough look at the figures.

 

Liverpool 'give' us three payments of, say, £33m.

Out of the first payment we have to pay Celtic £7m, agents at £20m (say) leaving £6m in the bank.

So over 3 years we receive £7m, £33m, £33m

 

We buy a new player (or payers) for £36m in three instalments.

We have to pay out £12m, £12m, £12m

 

So we're quids in for years two and three but we're out of pocket now.

 

Now these are very rough figures and these transfers are much more complicated that this but the principle is the same. Basically, all our costs relating to the sale are paid out in the first year in one lump.

 

(If any of this story is true)

You've had to make up a load of bizarre numbers to try and get your point to work. We're not paying £20m to agents.

Think we did that with Bale, took a million to do away with the sell on fee...?

And Barclays foreclosed our account anyway.

You've had to make up a load of bizarre numbers to try and get your point to work. We're not paying £20m to agents.

They are just illustrative numbers. Basically, if 10% goes to another club and 20% (say) goes to agents then 30% of the fee goes missing in the first year.

I wouldn’t be surprised at 20% for agents. 10% by selling club and 10% by player’s agent would easily make that and it could well be more. Remember Juan Pablo Angel? Villa wanted to pay £9.5m for him but his selling club would have received about £1.5m

Why? If Liverhampton can buy him and spread the payments over 3 years, surely we can do the same sort of thing. It is whether the club's owners want to do that, or use future income to deleverage a bit.

Yeah, Liverpool have to shell out the first payment straight away. We could do the same but we’d have to borrow against future receipts. Unless we’re sitting on a pile of cash in the bank.

There may be other reasons for the payment structure. If we take all our profit in one year then we may end up paying Corporation Tax on our profits. As I have said before, Premier League transfer accounting is devilishly complicated involving golden hellos, golden goodbyes, image rights paid through offshore limited companies, that sort of thing. What we won’t have at any time is £70m sitting in a deposit account.

Did we get one of these ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42615730?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_match_of_the_day&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport

Did we get one of these ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42615730?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_match_of_the_day&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport

Sorry we did get a few lines just seen .

They are just illustrative numbers. Basically, if 10% goes to another club and 20% (say) goes to agents then 30% of the fee goes missing in the first year.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised at 20% for agents. 10% by selling club and 10% by player’s agent would easily make that and it could well be more. Remember Juan Pablo Angel? Villa wanted to pay £9.5m for him but his selling club would have received about £1.5m

Transfer payments are spread over several years because ultimately it's the most beneficial arrangement for *both* parties.

And there is absolutely no way Southampton FC are paying 20million, or even 20 percent of 75million, in agents' fees.

You can't just make up figures and then say they are just illustrative when *by definition* they aren't.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Then how much do you think will go in agents' fees for this transfer? Man Utd paid £89.3m for Paul Poga with the player's agent getting £23m up front possibly rising to a total of £41m

http://uk.businessinsider.com/manchester-united-pay-paul-pogba-agent-2017-5

You don't seem to grasp the need to 'make up' figures for the purposes of illustration. This is done in an attempt to make the principle clearer for those who are hard of understanding. The actual numbers are not important but the ones I wrote are easy for the pedants to seize upon. If these are upsetting you then try changing the fees (transfer overheads) to 15% or 10% and see what happens. Whatever you choose you will find that a big lump comes out of the first transfer payment and dramatically reduces the net value of the sale and impacts on the cash flow and borrowing requirements.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/transfer-window-premier-league-revealed-how-a-transfer-deal-really-works-a7837031.html

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-football-agents-normal-commission-on-transfer-fees-and-player-salaries

They are just illustrative numbers. Basically, if 10% goes to another club and 20% (say) goes to agents then 30% of the fee goes missing in the first year.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised at 20% for agents. 10% by selling club and 10% by player’s agent would easily make that and it could well be more. Remember Juan Pablo Angel? Villa wanted to pay £9.5m for him but his selling club would have received about £1.5m

Selling club do not pay agents fees. Agents are paid by the player and the buying club. Why would the selling club pay an agent, in a case like VVD's. The time a selling club pays agents fees is when they are trying to offload a player and need to find a buyer. The original author of this item about VVD's transfer, the so called Deputy Football Correspondent of the Times has certainly caused some confusion by his Fake News. The article as I said before was just utter bowlocks but seems to have been swallowed hook line and sinker by some on here.

Interesting thoughts on VvD from Stewart Robson, who in my opinion, is one of the very best pundits about. He says he’s watched a lot of VvD and although he’ll make them better, that’s more down to how poor their centre halves are. Reckons he doesn’t read the game and can’t anticipate danger, uses his physicality to recover from slight positional and anticipation errors, but at champions league level you aren’t able to do that. Says he looks good because he’s good in the air, pretty quick and brings the ball out well. However, unless he starts to read the game defensively will never be top top class. Said lack of anticipation will be exposed at Liverpool because of the way they play and they over paid big time for him.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think his reading of the game is one of his better points. Still want him to fail at Liverpool, mind

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting thoughts on VvD from Stewart Robson, who in my opinion, is one of the very best pundits about. He says he’s watched a lot of VvD and although he’ll make them better, that’s more down to how poor their centre halves are. Reckons he doesn’t read the game and can’t anticipate danger, uses his physicality to recover from slight positional and anticipation errors, but at champions league level you aren’t able to do that. Says he looks good because he’s good in the air, pretty quick and brings the ball out well. However, unless he starts to read the game defensively will never be top top class. Said lack of anticipation will be exposed at Liverpool because of the way they play and they over paid big time for him.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Interesting thoughts on VvD from Stewart Robson, who in my opinion, is one of the very best pundits about. He says he’s watched a lot of VvD and although he’ll make them better, that’s more down to how poor their centre halves are. Reckons he doesn’t read the game and can’t anticipate danger, uses his physicality to recover from slight positional and anticipation errors, but at champions league level you aren’t able to do that. Says he looks good because he’s good in the air, pretty quick and brings the ball out well. However, unless he starts to read the game defensively will never be top top class. Said lack of anticipation will be exposed at Liverpool because of the way they play and they over paid big time for him.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fingers crossed!

Then how much do you think will go in agents' fees for this transfer? Man Utd paid £89.3m for Paul Poga with the player's agent getting £23m up front possibly rising to a total of £41m

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/manchester-united-pay-paul-pogba-agent-2017-5

 

You don't seem to grasp the need to 'make up' figures for the purposes of illustration. This is done in an attempt to make the principle clearer for those who are hard of understanding. The actual numbers are not important but the ones I wrote are easy for the pedants to seize upon. If these are upsetting you then try changing the fees (transfer overheads) to 15% or 10% and see what happens. Whatever you choose you will find that a big lump comes out of the first transfer payment and dramatically reduces the net value of the sale and impacts on the cash flow and borrowing requirements.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/transfer-window-premier-league-revealed-how-a-transfer-deal-really-works-a7837031.html

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-football-agents-normal-commission-on-transfer-fees-and-player-salaries

Why would clubs agree to pay the whole of a sell-on fee in an initial lump-sum when payments are usually staggered? Have you got a source for that?

Why would clubs agree to pay the whole of a sell-on fee in an initial lump-sum when payments are usually staggered? Have you got a source for that?

For the source see post #25 and the full text in #32. How much truth there is in this we don’t know. Full sell-on fee upfront might be a condition of the deal when we bought him. Who knows?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/football-notebook-virgil-van-dijk-fee-will-not-lead-southampton-to-spend-big-ph85g7bln

What point is that? Let's take a rough look at the figures.

 

Liverpool 'give' us three payments of, say, £33m.

Out of the first payment we have to pay Celtic £7m, agents at £20m (say) leaving £6m in the bank.

So over 3 years we receive £7m, £33m, £33m

 

We buy a new player (or payers) for £36m in three instalments.

We have to pay out £12m, £12m, £12m

 

So we're quids in for years two and three but we're out of pocket now.

 

Now these are very rough figures and these transfers are much more complicated that this but the principle is the same. Basically, all our costs relating to the sale are paid out in the first year in one lump.

 

(If any of this story is true)

Why would we pay Celtic all their fee at once? Surely they will get 10% or whatever everything time we received instalment........

Why would we pay Celtic all their fee at once? Surely they will get 10% or whatever everything time we received instalment........

Why wouldn’t they get it all upfront? It’s all down to the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and none of us is privy to those. The contract when we bought VVD could easily have stipulated full payment to Celtic of their cut when he was sold. Or then again it may not. There are no rules or regulations for this sort of thing.

Why wouldn’t they get it all upfront? It’s all down to the Terms and Conditions of the agreement and none of us is privy to those. The contract when we bought VVD could easily have stipulated full payment to Celtic of their cut when he was sold. Or then again it may not. There are no rules or regulations for this sort of thing.

Yeah, but it would seem odd to structure the agreement that way when most transfer fees are in installments. Just seems odd.

Yeah, but it would seem odd to structure the agreement that way when most transfer fees are in installments. Just seems odd.

Indeed, we just don’t know. You’re right, the fees are in instalments but we don’t know about the sell-ons.

My neighbour at St Mary’s, whose knowledge I respect, told me that Liverpool were paying Celtic’s cut on top of the reported fee.

In the end it doesn’t really matter. We shall get a big lump of money which should be enough for a couple of good, but not fantastic, defenders. The net value won’t be the full £75m though but the exact figures are not important unless you’re playing Football Manager.

Interesting thoughts on VvD from Stewart Robson, who in my opinion, is one of the very best pundits about. He says he’s watched a lot of VvD and although he’ll make them better, that’s more down to how poor their centre halves are. Reckons he doesn’t read the game and can’t anticipate danger, uses his physicality to recover from slight positional and anticipation errors, but at champions league level you aren’t able to do that. Says he looks good because he’s good in the air, pretty quick and brings the ball out well. However, unless he starts to read the game defensively will never be top top class. Said lack of anticipation will be exposed at Liverpool because of the way they play and they over paid big time for him.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The guy makes a valid point. As much as he is maligned in some quarters on here, if you actually watch Maya Yoshida he does actually read the game to the point where some find it easy to point the finger at him for a collective defensive howler contributing to an opposition goal. He sees the danger but gets torn as he wishes he could split himself in 2 to be in 2 places at once. A recent example of this was last season v Norwich in the cup, last minutes of the game VVD has gone walkabout to the left side of the 18 yard box for no reason leaving a hole in the 18 yard box Yoshida is defending his right side of the box with a Norwich player at his back, but anyone watching can see Maya can see the hole and Naismith lurking but is torn between reducing the hole and leaving not only the player at his back but the one further behind him, all the while VVD is still in explicably out of position in a crowded left side of the box, ball hits the VVD sized hole Naismith gets the last minute equaliser, numpties point the finger at Maya - VVD gets off scot free.

Spotted that flaw a couple of times in his time here.

With regards to the instalments, I thought I read somewhere that as well as Liverpool bidding top dollar over others, Saints had demanded and agreed the bulk of the payment up front rather than protracted installments. ?

Briefly watching a bit of Sky Sports this morning, you'd think the guy has never played in the PL and was signed from Barcelona, such is the sycophantic media driven ****** that surrounds Liverpool and everything about the club. One of the dozy morning presenters spoke of VVD "making his Premier League debut" (not Club debut, mind) on Sunday against Citeh and such is the fawning idolatry over the Scousers that suddenly his abilities are being reported as if he's some newly found messianic arrival to English football.

I hope he drops a bollock of Lovren-esque proportions on Sunday and City spank the Scousers by three goals.

Briefly watching a bit of Sky Sports this morning, you'd think the guy has never played in the PL and was signed from Barcelona, such is the sycophantic media driven ****** that surrounds Liverpool and everything about the club. One of the dozy morning presenters spoke of VVD "making his Premier League debut" (not Club debut, mind) on Sunday against Citeh and such is the fawning idolatry over the Scousers that suddenly his abilities are being reported as if he's some newly found messianic arrival to English football.

 

I hope he drops a bollock of Lovren-esque proportions on Sunday and City spank the Scousers by three goals.

Huge expectations on him with that price tag. If he doesn't stand out then people will start getting on his back.

Briefly watching a bit of Sky Sports this morning, you'd think the guy has never played in the PL and was signed from Barcelona, such is the sycophantic media driven ****** that surrounds Liverpool and everything about the club. One of the dozy morning presenters spoke of VVD "making his Premier League debut" (not Club debut, mind) on Sunday against Citeh and such is the fawning idolatry over the Scousers that suddenly his abilities are being reported as if he's some newly found messianic arrival to English football.

 

I hope he drops a bollock of Lovren-esque proportions on Sunday and City spank the Scousers by three goals.

+ 1

I do as well, not quite for him (although he did act like a complete and utter ****) but more for Liverpool.

Interview with him by Carragher on Sky Sports

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11669/11203913/exclusive-liverpools-virgil-van-dijk-sits-down-with-jamie-carragher

Interview with him by Carragher on Sky Sports

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11669/11203913/exclusive-liverpools-virgil-van-dijk-sits-down-with-jamie-carragher

VVD: Until the last couple of weeks I was just focused on Southampton, fully focused.

Yup, sure you you were boy.

Apparently he's injured! So sad.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/virgil-van-dijk-set-miss-14153231

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Hahahahahahahahaha

And so we get to watch Man City rip apart Lovren instead. Beautiful.

Apparently he's injured! So sad.

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/virgil-van-dijk-set-miss-14153231

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

thank **** for that, at least we will be spared Virgil this, Virgil that blah blah like the last game he played for them.