Jump to content

Fonte Transfer Rumours


Master Bates

Recommended Posts

The idiots who don’t rate Fonte and want us to sell him are the same idiots who didn’t rate Mane, Wanyama and Pelle and wanted us to sell them too. Right now, owing to the sale of those three, the defensive pairing of Fonte and van Dijk is all that's keeping us from a relegation struggle.

 

I think your search for an idiot should look closer to home.

 

- 7th in the Premier League

- semi final of the cup to come

 

If you think we have remotely close to a squad that would be in a relegation battle, then your ability to judge player quality is extremely poor (as is the case for a lot of bed wetters on this forum).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Utd offer us 15 mil for Fonte then we should take it.

 

That just isn't going to happen surely. Bailly and Smalling to come back in the next couple of weeks and Rojo and Jones are in fantastic form at the moment. They won't be paying that sort of money for Fonte and I doubt anybody will in reality. 5/6 million at the most and even then I'm not sure any of the big 6 would be interested. Everton at best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he goes, well move on and keep progressing. We've shown in recent years that we are not reliant on just one (or 2/3) players anymore. Would be a shame though, as hes been an instrumental part of our rise.

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That just isn't going to happen surely. Bailly and Smalling to come back in the next couple of weeks and Rojo and Jones are in fantastic form at the moment. They won't be paying that sort of money for Fonte and I doubt anybody will in reality. 5/6 million at the most and even then I'm not sure any of the big 6 would be interested. Everton at best

 

Agree with some of that. Rojo though has been gash. haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fonte is 3 years younger than Ibrahimovic and one of the fittest players in our squad.

He is also a reigning European champion at the peak of his game. Most top clubs, even Real Madrid, have a centre back in his early 30s. Young centre backs, even expensive ones like Stones, are just too erratic. If Les plans to sell him in January, he'll have several top Premier League clubs making offers, including Man United, where Mourinho would see him filling the role that Terry had at Chelsea. I still don't understand why some Saints fans underrate Fonte so much. He's one of the best central defenders I've ever seen and if we cash in on him in January there goes our watertight defence. Do we really need the money that badly? If so, we should keep him because the number of league places we’re going to drop without him is going to cost us a lot.

 

The idiots who don’t rate Fonte and want us to sell him are the same idiots who didn’t rate Mane, Wanyama and Pelle and wanted us to sell them too. Right now, owing to the sale of those three, the defensive pairing of Fonte and van Dijk is all that's keeping us from a relegation struggle.

 

It's not a case of people not rating Fonte ffs. He's 33? There comes a time when the club has to make a difficult decision and tell him he isn't going to get his contract extended. That time has probably right come. It doesn't mean we as fans dont rate him and the evidence is there that the club still rate him because in his own words he's been offered a pay rise. Just not a contract extension. He's probably quite fairly sounding out interest from other clubs so he can extend his stay in the Premier League for longer. If he doesn't leave in January or the latest this summer then he doesn't leave at all I imagine and as we aren't extending his contract then his top level career is over when the contract runs out. Leave now and he gets an extra year or two.

 

If we can get decent money for him and a replacement then lovely, it suits everyone for him to go sooner rather than later. If not, then we still have a top CB for the rest of the season and one who despite the speculation isn't letting him affect his performances. It's not the massive story everyone thinks it is, I doubt either party have been brilliant in the situation but that's life.

 

I would like to point out that this speculation is all for pro Fonte. Almost as if it's ran by the agent who either wants a move (so links him to United, who's manager is with the same agent so probably wont come out and dismiss it) or wants Saints to buckle under the pressure and extend his contract. It's interesting that all this speculation is the same as in the summer but the only bid that apparently came was from Everton. I wonder if the same will happen in January, that United will get used whilst not really wanting him, to try and drum up interest from elsewhere or as I say, make us give in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The club is clever with its manipulation and it's a shame how many players leave here on a sour note

 

3 sides to every story but on here the clubs side is always correct

 

You don't half write utter tosh. Who left on a sour note? Lallana and Lovren. That's it so far. And pray tell why the club are to blame for that, especially with Lovren? Simple fact is Glasgow, these players sign contracts and then expect them only to be observed unilaterally as and when it suits them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are probably right & Yosh has not let the team down when he has played this season BUT Fonte represents more than a CB .... he's the club captain & has dragged us from League One. Leaves a sour note on how this is panning out :(

I don't think we should be saying things like "He dragged us from League 1" he wasn't alone was he? Lambert's goals, Gulys goals, Sharps goals, Fox's dead ball deliveries, Dean Hammonds leadership, Chaplows tenacity, Connollys goals, Super Kelvins performances between the posts etc etc. Jose Fonte is getting on a bit, it would be a poor business decision to throw a new contract at him. He's been offered a pay rise, assumingly to mark his position as 'top boy' and to reflect his past loyalties to the club, if he doesn't want to accept that then it's a shame but what else can the club do? He's certainly not bigger than SFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally i think the board have got it spot on with this one, they offered him a pay rise to reflect his position within the club after a great season for the club and Fonte. He is contracted to 2018. Think back how many time we bought players and offered silly money to ageing pro's looking for that last big pay packet.....some worked out, some didn't. We are no longer that club, thank god. Fonte has been excellent for Saints and i love the guy.....but Saints have been fantastic for him, lets not forget that!

I completely understand him wanting to extend his contract and therefore extend his Premiership footballing days but this is a business and i believe the board are doing what is right for the club.

I'm sorry but Fonte does not really have much to moan about at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally i think the board have got it spot on with this one, they offered him a pay rise to reflect his position within the club after a great season for the club and Fonte. He is contracted to 2018. Think back how many time we bought players and offered silly money to ageing pro's looking for that last big pay packet.....some worked out, some didn't. We are no longer that club, thank god. Fonte has been excellent for Saints and i love the guy.....but Saints have been fantastic for him, lets not forget that!

I completely understand him wanting to extend his contract and therefore extend his Premiership footballing days but this is a business and i believe the board are doing what is right for the club.

I'm sorry but Fonte does not really have much to moan about at all.

 

Completely agree.

 

Maybe provide a 'gentleman's agreement' that if he plays more than x amount next year we'll offer him a 1 year extension and keep it on that basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am afraid to say that it is players/agents once again not understanding what the contract they signed actually means. Are they all rather dense? Fonte signed an extension in October of 2015 to take him up to the end of June 2018. He signed it. The club are not beholden to offer any further extension, in the same way that players are not beholden to extend theirs if the club wants it. Players might like to think that they have all the "power" but they don't. If (and the operative word is "if") Fonte has the hump, then I would be happy with Yoshi as his attitude makes up for other areas. But has he the hump? We hear all this stuff about coaching and wanting to be a coach at Saints, but that sits a little differently from what little we have been hearing of recent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He certainly has. He was perfect in his last 2 games v Middlesbrough and Stoke: a European champion at the peak of his game. It's no coincidence that we get so many clean sheets when he plays: 4 in the last 5 games he's played.

 

We managed the second best defence in the Europa League without him, after Shalke, I believe.

Only conceded 8 in the 12 games Yoshi has played in all comps.

We've yet to concede more than 1 goal in a game Fonte was ABSENT from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The club is clever with its manipulation and it's a shame how many players leave here on a sour note

 

3 sides to every story but on here the clubs side is always correct

I always wonder what it must be like to be clever with manipulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/12/19/southampton-will-refuse-sell-virgil-van-dijk-january-may-listen/

 

Interesting briefing to Jeremy Wilson - Fonte may go for 'sizeable offer' in Jan, Van Dijk staying in January but might go in summer with £40m valuation.

 

I wonder what was in Fonte's contract offer besides the pay rise - he wouldn't have turned down the money unless there was something attached he didn't like. Perhaps a release clause?

 

Wilson writes that we will only listen to offers for Van Dijk this summer if we've identified a replacement...but doesn't explicitly say we take the same approach with Fonte. Hope there's nothing in that.

Edited by DuncanRG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/12/19/southampton-will-refuse-sell-virgil-van-dijk-january-may-listen/

 

Interesting briefing to Jeremy Wilson - Fonte may go for 'sizeable offer' in Jan, Van Dijk staying in January but might go in summer with £40m valuation.

 

I wonder what was in Fonte's contract offer besides the pay rise - he wouldn't have turned down the money unless there was something attached he didn't like. Perhaps a release clause?

 

Wilson writes that we will only listen to offers for Van Dijk this summer if we've identified a replacement...but doesn't explicitly say we take the same approach with Fonte. Hope there's nothing in that.

We haven't put any release clauses in for any player so not sure why we would put one in for a 33 year old centre back.

 

Article sounds about right - we won't sell VVD in January. Will be interesting if we do end up Jack Corking Fonte out the door next month. Would be a rather ignominious end to a fine tenure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know if me being a bit Touchy but Le Tiss was asked on Talksport this morning about losing 2 central defenders in January and only mentioned Virgil saying he had just signed 6 year deal so don't need to sell - never mentioned Jose at all. Could just be me putting 2 and 2 but surprised he didn't say anything about the captain

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/12/19/southampton-will-refuse-sell-virgil-van-dijk-january-may-listen/

 

Interesting briefing to Jeremy Wilson - Fonte may go for 'sizeable offer' in Jan, Van Dijk staying in January but might go in summer with £40m valuation.

 

I wonder what was in Fonte's contract offer besides the pay rise - he wouldn't have turned down the money unless there was something attached he didn't like. Perhaps a release clause?

 

Wilson writes that we will only listen to offers for Van Dijk this summer if we've identified a replacement...but doesn't explicitly say we take the same approach with Fonte. Hope there's nothing in that.

Article makes complete sense. No chance of us selling VVD now. Hopefully when he does go we get at least equal to what Stones cost though.

 

Fonte situation is obviously a little more than what has been publically stated but again, the position of the club nakes complete sense. Either he wants to be at Saints or wants a big deal elsewhere, if one is offered next month he will be off most likely. If not then he might regret the position he has put himself in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/12/19/southampton-will-refuse-sell-virgil-van-dijk-january-may-listen/

 

Interesting briefing to Jeremy Wilson - Fonte may go for 'sizeable offer' in Jan, Van Dijk staying in January but might go in summer with £40m valuation.

 

I wonder what was in Fonte's contract offer besides the pay rise - he wouldn't have turned down the money unless there was something attached he didn't like. Perhaps a release clause?

 

Wilson writes that we will only listen to offers for Van Dijk this summer if we've identified a replacement...but doesn't explicitly say we take the same approach with Fonte. Hope there's nothing in that.

 

Nothing in there a realistic Saints fan wouldn't assume.

 

But going into next season without the 2 of them is brave even by our standards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/12/19/southampton-will-refuse-sell-virgil-van-dijk-january-may-listen/

 

Interesting briefing to Jeremy Wilson - Fonte may go for 'sizeable offer' in Jan, Van Dijk staying in January but might go in summer with £40m valuation.

 

I wonder what was in Fonte's contract offer besides the pay rise - he wouldn't have turned down the money unless there was something attached he didn't like. Perhaps a release clause?

 

Wilson writes that we will only listen to offers for Van Dijk this summer if we've identified a replacement...but doesn't explicitly say we take the same approach with Fonte. Hope there's nothing in that.

 

Why on earth would a player not like a release clause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in there a realistic Saints fan wouldn't assume.

 

But going into next season without the 2 of them is brave even by our standards!

 

Only listen to offers if we find a replacement. Can't imagine it would be likely that we will find someone who is at least as good as Virgil, especially that we will already be looking for a player in the same position to replace Fonte. So no replacement, no deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How quick some supporters turn their back on players. Not to long ago some people claimed Martina was better than Cedric :) Now Yoshida is better than Fonte.

 

Other than a few dodgy games at the start of the season, Fonte has been as reliable as usual. Yoshida has grown this season but im far from comfortable replacing Fonte with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How quick some supporters turn their back on players. Not to long ago some people claimed Martina was better than Cedric :) Now Yoshida is better than Fonte.

 

Other than a few dodgy games at the start of the season, Fonte has been as reliable as usual. Yoshida has grown this season but im far from comfortable replacing Fonte with him.

 

Agree with this but this is what happens when players are linked with a move away, suddenly they're viewed as overrated. Fonte has been in fine form since giving that penalty away at Arsenal and is still better than Yoshida.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with this but this is what happens when players are linked with a move away, suddenly they're viewed as overrated. Fonte has been in fine form since giving that penalty away at Arsenal and is still better than Yoshida.

I think some people use the word underrated, when the term replaceable should be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})