Chez

FFS. Who do we even have to play wide left and right?

More like £25m to pay down debt and £25m to cover shortfall in income to pay wages of existing 20 crap players.

If he wants to stay he will stay. An agent can't force a move. He will be doing what any agent would do - create an alternative option that helps him get the best deal possible either from SFC or elsewhere. The Dibling family will be fully aware of his actions. This story about the Dibling family being at loggerheads with the agent is probably part of the plan to ensure the agent is the bad guy not the player.

almost anywhere. A season in the championship is going to be seen as a wasted season. It's never going to happen...unless our valuation is simply off the charts...but even then there are going to be clubs signing him to stop another getting him.

Spurs: "How about £100k a week?" die Mannyschaft: "nah, you'll aright thanks."

Not sure that is conclusive, but the fact is, its a loan until the end of the season, after that nothing is set in stone.

Yep, a real shame. He's one of the few players that gets you out of your seat. You just wonder if we had stayed up, if both he and the team might have grown together and who knows where that might have ended. There are lots of noises about leaving etc. (and relegation makes that seem pretty certain), but that's just the agent doing his job. In the end, if we stayed up and then paid him the kings ransom his agent would nto doubt ask for, he may well have stayed.

If this goal is anything to go by, he might make a reasonable Dibling replacement.

the Grundian suggests Chelsea, Tottenham, Aston Villa, Liverpool or Leipzig https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/jan/23/football-transfer-rumours-race-tyler-dibling-southampton-five-way-race-january

I think we have seen both the best and worst of Aribo while he has been with us. At the levels we have played, I don't think there is more to get from him, but perhaps some of the good things are underapreciated.

I see. Makes sense...except the going rate (half way through a loan) seem to be changing. That's the bit that seems unusual.

He doesnt fancy another season in the championship? If this is true, then the rumours that he was still on £70k a week in the championship were utter bollocks. No way he leaves early for Besiktas - who aint paying him that. Is this a sales advert placed by SFC or his agent? Once we moved him back into a regular midfield role, he was very effective for us in the championship run in. He is extremely good at holding the ball up when opponents are tight to him, allowing others a little more time to move into space. He provided that `bravery' that WGS and the like want - a willingness to receive the ball in tight spaces and not just pass it straight back or flick in on. The only problem is that he's not really a centre midfielder. He doesn't cover the ground quick enough defensively. He does make interceptoons and put a foot in, but I am not sure he gets tight to pponents like they do to him.

I know he's our player and we can do what we please, but if this is true, I'd be a bit annoyed if I was Wednesday and Saints changed the goalposts/requested more money half way through the loan. Either we want him back (to play or provide cover) or not. Has this happened before (requiring a larger lopan fee)? I know players have been recalled and sent elsewhere (or sold) but thats usually because the first loan wasn't working out.

I think you may have missed the irony in my post OldNick.

Sure seems high, but City dont like getting their young talent away, so who knows. That said, any sell on percentage would be on profit not total.