SuperSAINT Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 A Saints team last week, u19's or could have been just an academy team, played Hamble 1sts. Virgil played. Virgil was very relaxed and laid back. Everyone wanted to talk to him and he chatted with everyone. He openly said he was going to Chelsea. Hamble won 5-4..... :suspicious: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Albert Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 why doesn't the Dutch **** just hand in a transfer request and **** off? It would seem like the honourable thing to do, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Albert Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 A Saints team last week, u19's or could have been just an academy team, played Hamble 1sts. Virgil played. Virgil was very relaxed and laid back. Everyone wanted to talk to him and he chatted with everyone. He openly said he was going to Chelsea. Hamble won 5-4..... That would be an interesting development. Conflicts with the statement "a person close to the player" made in the media about being confident of a move to Liverpool, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/08/03/southampton-boss-mauricio-pellegrino-warns-virgil-van-dijk-will/ The article seems to end before it gets going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamplemousse Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/08/03/southampton-boss-mauricio-pellegrino-warns-virgil-van-dijk-will/ New Jeremy Wilson article is interesting Hopefully Pellegrino can work his magic. He seems popular with the players, hopefully that is the case with VVD too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pengi Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 I stand by my opinion that he's not world class. It's all about opinions though. Certainly not a world class attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 A Saints team last week, u19's or could have been just an academy team, played Hamble 1sts. Virgil played. Virgil was very relaxed and laid back. Everyone wanted to talk to him and he chatted with everyone. He openly said he was going to Chelsea. Hamble won 5-4.....So this happened last week. Last week, and despite him 'talking to everybody, and telling them he's off to Chelsea', this is the first we've heard about it. And here's me thinking the ITK's on this board had all the bases covered. Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Saint Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 The Times reporting that Chelsea set to make a £50m bid plus add-ons. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 Something happened between VvD and the Club (Les) during the months that followed, presumably after January. Liverpool's approach was not the catalyst for change, it was a result of whatever that catalyst was (in my opinion). Would love to know what it was that happened to sour the relationship. Presumably Virgil got into bed with that bastard Agent from Wassermans, who turned his head. But it is suggested Van Dijk’s agent was eager to push for a move to Anfield as that will apparently secure him the biggest personal pay-off. according to Yahoo Sport quoted in an Express article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wimborne_saint Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 The Times reporting that Chelsea set to make a £50m bid plus add-ons. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Wouldn't mind him joining Chelsea, but not for that price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Albert Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 The Times reporting that Chelsea set to make a £50m bid plus add-ons. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 50M plus add ons seems a bit light to me in today's market. This Matt Hughes article is behind a paywall but describes Chelsea as being confident they can get a deal over the line, and they are willing to exploit the poor relations between Saints and Liverpool. Also Conte persuaded his club to make the offer. This may flush Liverpool out of the weeds and test their "we have no further interest in VVD" stance, which as we all suspect, is completely false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 A Saints team last week, u19's or could have been just an academy team, played Hamble 1sts. Virgil played. Virgil was very relaxed and laid back. Everyone wanted to talk to him and he chatted with everyone. He openly said he was going to Chelsea. Hamble won 5-4.....Do they not have smart phone cameras and access to the internet in Hamble...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchards Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 Wouldn't mind him joining Chelsea, but not for that price. Swap deal for Costa and Hazard I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridge Saint Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 If he's going to Chelsea, and after the Neymar deal, it has to be $100M minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohgulydoprado Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 £65m and bite their hand off, especially as it seems we won't be buying until we sell (one way or another) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 That would be an interesting development. Conflicts with the statement "a person close to the player" made in the media about being confident of a move to Liverpool, though. Saint Albert, without being rude - The term " A person / source close to the player" means they are making it up and can't name the source or person close to the player, because they don't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_lambden Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 A Saints team last week, u19's or could have been just an academy team, played Hamble 1sts. Virgil played. Virgil was very relaxed and laid back. Everyone wanted to talk to him and he chatted with everyone. He openly said he was going to Chelsea. Hamble won 5-4..... Probably should get rid of him then if he was playing CB in a team that conceded 5 goals against Hamble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfahaji Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 Presumably Virgil got into bed with that bastard Agent from Wassermans, who turned his head. according to Yahoo Sport quoted in an Express article. Sad state of affairs that players basically join whoever the agent wants them to, and behave just how the agent dictates nowadays. I doubt Virgil really does "have his heart set on a move to Liverpool", he's probably just being instructed that his behaviour is the best tactic to get the move to happen. If we don't sell him, his agent will say "never mind, it didn't work. Buck up and get playing again, keep yourself in the shop window and we'll go again in January". Equally if Chelsea come in for him, he'll be "desperate" to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Albert Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 Saint Albert, without being rude - The term " A person / source close to the player" means they are making it up and can't name the source or person close to the player, because they don't exist. Could be. I recall that the prevailing opinion at the time seemed to be that it was his agent, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 I hear what you say, but again it's assumptions. The fact is that we are a stepping stone club. If we weren't we wouldn't sign the likes of VVD, Mane, Lovren, Alderweireld (I know it was a loan). Signing players on long term deals are for our benefit, not the players. Sure, we're fans and want to see good players stay but we can't expect that - it's where we are in the layer cake. If we didn't have this approach we'd be signing players that the likes of West Bromwich attract. Consequently, when we sign up these players who are clearly destined for bigger moves, something has to be in it for the player over and above a few extra pounds a week while they are with us. One of those things may be an assurance of a move in certain situations. Without that I suspect that they wouldn't sign. Whilst I hate any form of striking or holding people to ransom, I fear that if we get a reputation in the game for blocking players paths we will be much less likely to sign the next VVD or Mane. That's a real problem. The longer this stalemate continues I suspect that we'll find the transfer market a trickier place in the future. Imo it's a horrible situation for the club - they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. I've posted it before, but here goes. The reputation we want is that if you sign a four or five year contract with us and you progess we will offer you a new, improved long term contract. If you accept it we expect you to stay longer, if you refuse we will sell you on after two or three years. That is (I believe) our position here and it is the reputation we want. But yes, this is my assumption. Possibly, we want a reputation as being Liverpool's farm club. Or maybe we want a reputation as gang of Russian spies. Or maybe we want a reputation as the first Premier League club to relocate to the United States. But the evidence I see causes me to infer (and assume) that my first guess is the right one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 3 August, 2017 Share Posted 3 August, 2017 It's blindingly obvious we're a stepping stone club, though the players we sign are far from the finished article -some will kick on; some won't. Likewise, nobody here is expecting players to see out the full length of a contract when we offer long terms. You're criticising an illusory target. Rather the question -which you completely miss- is what the club can reasonably expect when a player decides to sign an extension when they are barely through their initial contract. I think there's every expectation that VVD would stay another season. If not, there is no point in the club offering an extension. Again none of this is inconsistent with being a stepping stone club as it's not the intention to hold VVD to the full length of any extension. Redslo is spot on here. Thinking of making this the motto of my blog. Do I need to attribute the quote to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 We're straying from the point that the extension is for the club's benefit, not the player. The longer the contract, in theory, the stronger our hand when selling time comes. At least that used to be the thinking! To give that something to the club, the player expects something. Sure, there'll be money, but more besides I suspect. To answer your question, the club can expect some commitment from the player. It could be to delay a move to the next season rather than an immediate move - I'm not quite sure why and redslo assume something different. I am not assuming something different. When he signed his new contract, he had four years left on his old contract--in other words 1 to three more years with us. After he signed it he had six years left which I interpret as meaning 2 to 5 move years with us. Of course, the 5 would have been ridiculous but 2 or 3 wasn't. And if 1 more year was contemplated, there would be no reason for the new contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNSUN Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 Wouldn't mind him joining Chelsea, but not for that price. Agree it's low, but we've got more chance getting the add ons with him at Chelsea compared to a similar deal with Liverpool. Not to mention it's worth £20 million to see Liverpool miss out on their top 2 targets of the summer! (Kidding of course...to a point...) I reckon a deal can be done with Chelsea though, it's not the first time this summer their name have been mentioned in relation to VVD. That said, Sod's law states he'll be a Liverpool player soon, as nothing seems to be going for us at the moment. Clubs can see we're wounded and are trying to take the pee with the fee. I still think we'll end up with somewhere between £60 and 65 million if we can hold our nerve... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_D Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 The Times reporting that Chelsea set to make a £50m bid plus add-ons. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamplemousse Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 No less than £75M, up-front. No ifs, no buts. If Chelsea want him, they'll pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diggers Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 Now here's an idea...why don't Fenway Sports Group just buy Saints from Kat and be done with it? Flog off the dippers and they've saved themselves tens of millions. They're buying us piece mill with inflated prices. That thought (tongue in cheek) is a horrific nightmare!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 Disagree that we should try to sell to Chelsea. That'd still constitute us giving in to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjk Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 Personally hope we sell him soon couldn't care who to,dont want to see that man in a Saints shirt again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazza Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 No less than £75M, up-front. No ifs, no buts. If Chelsea want him, they'll pay. I'd agree with that but given what's gone on I'd also stipulate that he must hand in a transfer request before we agree to any sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 I'd agree with that but given what's gone on I'd also stipulate that he must hand in a transfer request before we agree to any sale.Absolutely. If we're going to give way, he has to feel pain. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajjuk Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 £50 million flat fee plus Christensen and Baker, I'd take that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 £50 million flat fee plus Christensen and Baker, I'd take that. If we are going all fantasy football 25 million plus Kante and Hazard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 Agree it's low, but we've got more chance getting the add ons with him at Chelsea compared to a similar deal with Liverpool. Not to mention it's worth £20 million to see Liverpool miss out on their top 2 targets of the summer! (Kidding of course...to a point...) I reckon a deal can be done with Chelsea though, it's not the first time this summer their name have been mentioned in relation to VVD. That said, Sod's law states he'll be a Liverpool player soon, as nothing seems to be going for us at the moment. Clubs can see we're wounded and are trying to take the pee with the fee. I still think we'll end up with somewhere between £60 and 65 million if we can hold our nerve...Clubs can see we are wounded? FFS, talk about over dramatic bed wetting. This bid (if they've made it) and hopefully one from City, has been coming for over a week. I told Ericb last week that City and Chelsea were back in. Let's just say that they're designed to test the water at this stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 Clubs can see we are wounded? FFS, talk about over dramatic bed wetting. This bid (if they've made it) and hopefully one from City, has been coming for over a week. I told Ericb last week that City and Chelsea were back in. Let's just say that they're designed to test the water at this stage. If it's Chelsea or City VVD goes to I could suck it up. But it needs to be done quick so we can reinvest the cash in the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 I am not assuming something different. When he signed his new contract, he had four years left on his old contract--in other words 1 to three more years with us. After he signed it he had six years left which I interpret as meaning 2 to 5 move years with us. Of course, the 5 would have been ridiculous but 2 or 3 wasn't. And if 1 more year was contemplated, there would be no reason for the new contract. We'll agree to disagree. The fundamental points are that a) extended contracts (where it is accepted that the player will move during the contract, like with VVD) are for the club's benefit not the player, and b) there will likely have been agreements or understandings reached when that deal was agreed relevant to the future transfer. You lurch to conclusions about that whereas I say none of us know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKD Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 Clubs can see we are wounded? FFS, talk about over dramatic bed wetting. This bid (if they've made it) and hopefully one from City, has been coming for over a week. I told Ericb last week that City and Chelsea were back in. Let's just say that they're designed to test the water at this stage. It looks like City and Chelsea have played their hand remarkably. Let the dippers mouth off and royally **** us off whilst unsettling the player and then coming in late with a bid slightly lower than what we would have accepted at the start of the window. I could stomach him going to either one (preferably Chelsea if we can get a part ex) as it's fairly clear the **** won't play for us again. I can't wait to see the dippers reaction when he goes elsewhere I assume our stance of not dealing with Liverpool will continue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 Agree it's low, but we've got more chance getting the add ons with him at Chelsea compared to a similar deal with Liverpool. Not to mention it's worth £20 million to see Liverpool miss out on their top 2 targets of the summer! (Kidding of course...to a point...) I reckon a deal can be done with Chelsea though, it's not the first time this summer their name have been mentioned in relation to VVD. That said, Sod's law states he'll be a Liverpool player soon, as nothing seems to be going for us at the moment. Clubs can see we're wounded and are trying to take the pee with the fee. I still think we'll end up with somewhere between £60 and 65 million if we can hold our nerve... Closer the deadline the deeper the pockets. They pay our price or he stays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 This bid (if they've made it) and hopefully one from City, has been coming for over a week. I told Ericb last week that City and Chelsea were back in. Let's just say that they're designed to test the water at this stage. Interesting, thanks for sharing. He'd be a great fit at city but I fear they'll see walker's price as a comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 Disagree that we should try to sell to Chelsea. That'd still constitute us giving in to him. This.... DO NOT SELL TO ANYONE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 Wouldn't mind him joining Chelsea, but not for that price. What about if Virgil doesn't want to go to Chelsea? We can't make him. He has said he only wants to play for Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 I'd have been surprised if he had of been picked - not played a competitive game in 6 months (other than the stupid ones he's playing now). Got long hair like a girl though, so they might have made a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 What about if Virgil doesn't want to go to Chelsea? We can't make him. He has said he only wants to play for Liverpool. Assuming we refuse to sell to Liverpool, and he refuses to play for us, and Chelsea make an acceptable offer he ain't got much choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 We'll agree to disagree. The fundamental points are that a) extended contracts (where it is accepted that the player will move during the contract, like with VVD) are for the club's benefit not the player, and b) there will likely have been agreements or understandings reached when that deal was agreed relevant to the future transfer. You lurch to conclusions about that whereas I say none of us know. Unless of course the fundamental point of a new contract is to give a player a big pay rise after the new tv income, and extending the period is just a bit of quid pro quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 What about if Virgil doesn't want to go to Chelsea? We can't make him. He has said he only wants to play for Liverpool. We won't sell to Liverpool and I'm sure if Chelsea comes calling, given the situation he has created, he would quickly overcome his desperate desire to play for Klopp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 I am firmly in the Virgil in camp. That said, given the options if Chelsea and Liverpool both make the same acceptable offer turn down Liverpool's bid out of spite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 So Chelsea come in with a derisory bid and everyone thinks we should sell? That still makes us look weak because we're still kowtowing to a 'big club' and to a player who thinks he's 'bigger' than our club. We cave in now and this kind of thing will continue to happen next season and the season after ad infinitum... This is not the way to deal with bullying. No way Conte! Not for sale! Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 What about if Virgil doesn't want to go to Chelsea? We can't make him. He has said he only wants to play for Liverpool. Why would he not want to go to Chelsea. Any decent player would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 Unless of course the fundamental point of a new contract is to give a player a big pay rise after the new tv income, and extending the period is just a bit of quid pro quo. Of course they'll be more money for him for the short period he was to be here but the point is what's in it for him, rather than us, to sign for such a long period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 We'll agree to disagree. The fundamental points are that a) extended contracts (where it is accepted that the player will move during the contract, like with VVD) are for the club's benefit not the player, and b) there will likely have been agreements or understandings reached when that deal was agreed relevant to the future transfer. You lurch to conclusions about that whereas I say none of us know. Well you're just fundamentally wrong on point a), everyone else knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 4 August, 2017 Share Posted 4 August, 2017 What about if Virgil doesn't want to go to Chelsea? We can't make him. He has said he only wants to play for Liverpool. Has he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts