Virgil Transfer Rumours - Summer 17

[Diabolus Ex Machina]

There is a price we will sell to Liverpool for, but they're not prepared to pay it. Either we'll lower that price, they'll pay it, or he'll come round & play out the season. My monies on the first one, we will back down & do a deal

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Care to explain why you think we will back down on our asking price? Unlike previous examples we hold a lot more bargaining power as he is under a long contract.

 

Do you think keeping him here will reduce his value significantly over the next 6-12 months? I'd argue no amount of sulking will change how talented a player he is and so his value shouldn't be affected. Alternatively maybe you think his disruptive attitude is a problem for the club? In which case is your answer to sell any players that don't want to be here to any club that wants them at whatever price they are willing to pay? That is a terrible business model and would be a horrific precedent to set.

 

Honestly I only see 2 real options - pay us what we want and take him off our hands or he stays here. Whether he knuckles down and plays or keeps himself isolated until the next window is up to him. Only reason I think we may drop our price a little is if he does hand in a transfer request and foregoes his loyalty bonus and even then i'd still imagine our profit margin would remain the same on the deal.

[Shroppie]

I personally would offer him to Chelsea in exchange for a reasonable sum and a few youth players with potential. Tell Liverpool to do one.

But we're led to believe he doesn't want to go there.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[baggytrousers]

There is a price we will sell to Liverpool for, but they're not prepared to pay it. Either we'll lower that price, they'll pay it, or he'll come round & play out the season. My monies on the first one, we will back down & do a deal

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why on earth would we do that ? To accept a cut price deal from Liverpool would be the worst of all worlds. Crazy stuff !!!

 

We should absolutely stand firm.

 

Matt Le Tiss had it spot on with his comments today.

 

The tide is turning and we have the upper hand in this situation. Let's use it.

[Heisenberg]

But we're led to believe he doesn't want to go there.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

Has VVD said that - or just Liverpool "sources"?

[Give it to Ron]

I'm starting to wonder I must admit.

 

Why? Have we sold him? Has the window closed yet?

I am still hoping we will bring in at least 2 quality additions to the team...not the squad the team.

[Shroppie]

Has VVD said that - or just Liverpool "sources"?

You could be right. There's so much that hasn't been said.

 

In any case, he'll possibly end up in a Fonte situation and take any move to save face. But he will still attract a better class of club. [emoji6]

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Edited 2 August, 2017 by Shroppie

[Heisenberg]

Why? Have we sold him? Has the window closed yet?

I am still hoping we will bring in at least 2 quality additions to the team...not the squad the team.

 

We were saying the same In January re; Fonte

[ally_uk]

Why should he dictate? I'm sorry but he signed a 6 year contract our staff also got him back to fitness and we gave him captaincy. He then acts like a complete asshat.....

 

I don't want to see him in a Saints shirt again or a Liverpool one. Either be ruthless and grow some swedes and let him rot in reserves. Send out a message to future clubs and players that we no longer will tolerate throwing toys out pram mentality.

 

Or just get him sold now to city or Chelsea and strengthen.

[eurosaint]

Neymar has a 222m euro release clause. His father is his agent. PSG have to pay the release clause in full before he is released. Barcelona, Neymar and PSG are tied by the contract and provided the conditions are fulfilled Neymar can move. This is completely different to VVD who is trying to force a sale by an unwilling seller whilst indicating he is psychologically unable to motivate himself unless he gets his way.

 

Make him put in a transfer request and provided he pays up the five years left on his contract and he pays all related agents fees with the transfer we will transfer his registration to LFC on receipt of £70m paid in full. That will make a few eyes water.

 

From what I have read, he has not done that, Pellegrino was the one who insisted that he train alone as he felt that team spirit may be affected !

VVD and his advisors are clearly trying to avoid 'strike' accusations as this would negatively impact on their financial position. That is why the best tactic for SFC is to sit it out !

IMHO of course !

[Saint Pete]

Why do some insist on bleating on about Fonte, he was on a big decline and is now worse than JS and MY... we would only be worse off because of the loss VVD

If Fonte has declined, that may prove the club were right to sell when they did, but it doesn't prove that he has been replaced successfully. We should have been aiming to replace a peak performing Fonte, not a declining one. Otherwise, we are moving backwards from where we were.

 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[Block 5]

This.

 

QUOTE=Professor;2518139]I'm not sure the club does need to sell Van Dijk in order to move on. He can just be left out in the cold until a suitable solution arises. The team played without him for half of last season, and since then, one more CB has been added to the squad anyway. As long as the club holds his registration, his value remains on the balance sheet, which in the absence of any bid is based on the 13m we paid for him, not the speculative figures in the media. If the club stands firm until the window closes, it's going to be a very long Autumn for Van Dijk because it's his career that is at risk. If this goes on beyond the transfer window, or the club think he might be a disruptive influence, the club hierarchy might decide they don't want him to play for us again even if he says he will. It's possible he may have to find any club except Liverpool in order to play again.

By standing firm, Southampton can deter similar situations in the future by showing the wealthy clubs that our best players can no longer be picked off while under contract.

 

 

And this.

 

Really don't understand the fans who are urging the club to get rid of VVD. Guess it's a purely emotional thing like being jilted by a girlfriend but to me it makes no sense.

 

Really think the club are doing exactly the right thing by effectively putting him on 'gardening leave' until he eventually comes around. Which he will. What other choice does he have ?.

 

VVD is playing the game that he's been ill advised to do by his lousy agent and some dodgy scousers but the only cards he's got are to use up some of the club's budget on wages for him not playing and to disrupt the team.

 

We've been paying his wages for the last 6 months without him kicking a ball so what's the difference and we're keeping him seperated from the team (this was our mistake with Fonte) by having him train alone.

 

Meanwhile his country are sitting third in their World Cup qualifying group 3 points behind both France and Sweden and are playing both sides before October is out. In fact the France game is this month and is shaping up as one of that illustrious country's most important games of recent years.

 

Let's not forget that he has 5 years of his contract left to run. 5 years.

 

So what exactly are Virgil's options if we stand firm ?

 

If he agrees to come back to the team and then plays up we simply kick him back into solitary for a while and adopt a more hardline attitude about when he can get a move away.

 

If the club continues to hold firm then Virgil's only real options are to come around, give us one last season and then get his move or to play up and knacker his own career.

 

We simply don't need to sell.

 

If you're playing poker and you have an unbeatable hand (which we do), you don't fold when things start getting a bit scary. You stand your ground.

 

This fiasco will NOT stop other players from wanting to join us in future. The only players that would be discouraged from signing for us are the kind that might be liable to behave in the same way as VVD in order to engineer a move away. And we DON'T want those types of player anyway.

 

VVD is NOT disrupting the team, he's being kept well away from our other players (we learned from Fontegate).

The quick decision by MP to keep him away from the squad was a stroke of genius.

Ostracism has been one of of the most powerful tools to engender cohesion throughout all of human history. It can even be seen in the animal kingdom. And it works!

No one in our squad will be feeling pity for VVD, especially if our manager is as good a manipulator as he seems to be.

VVD will be resented. That's how ostracism works.

 

We CAN afford to continue paying his wages even though he's not playing, we have budgeted VVD's wages into our accounts for the next 5 years. And despite that, the money raised from JayRod's sale covers VVD's wages.

We've just earned a couple of extra million by agreeing for Virgin Media to put patches on our sleeves FFS.

Personally, I'd invite companies to sponsor VVD's wages every week.

It would be an absolute laugh: "this week, Virgil Van Dijk's childish petulance will be sponsored by Paddy Power".

We could turn him into a complete joke.

 

What's more, people saying that he is a £60m asset are wrong!

On the balance sheet (and THAT is what matters in business) he is worth what we paid Celtic for him, and not a penny more.

 

We CAN buy another quality CB, I have no doubt that was always our intention, but not to enable the sale of VVD but rather to bed in this season as an eventual replacement for VVD.

 

We have no obligation to play VVD, he can train on his own and watch Jeremy Kyle every day.

The only casualty of his continued shabby behaviour will be his own career.

 

I'd keep him out all season and make an example to all. No player is bigger than any football club.

I'd only accept him back in to the fold if he sacks his agent, makes a grovelling public apology about how he'd been poorly advised and then crawls in to Les Reed's office on his hands and knees whilst tugging his forelock.

If he doesn't he can spend the next three years cleaning boots for the under 18s.

Then sell him to Dante's Inferno United, where he can spend eternity playing football in the fifth circle of hell whilst simultaneously burning alive and having his eyes plucked from their sockets, over and over.

 

We have over 130 years of history and 130 years from now, we will still be going strong and VVD will be completely forgotten.

 

Some of the above is obviously flippant but we really are in a strong position here.

 

Les, if you're reading this and your John Thomas is starting to shrivel up, pop a couple of Viagra and stand firm old bean!

[Saint Albert]

The Irish Independent claims to have inside sources at the club. Here they claim that Saints are more determined than ever to keep VVD, and that VVD is "badly advised":

 

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/badly-advised-virgil-van-dijk-may-have-ruined-his-chances-of-a-dream-move-to-liverpool-35993867.html

[Charlie Wayman]

I'll be really disappointed if TOM28 is correct and we've decided to roll over and sell him. Makes us look completely spineless. It'll just encourage whatever team wants to poach one of our players next summer.

Worse still is the timing. At least if they made the decision in June they could have planned and spent money early in the window like Everton.

Now we've got a week and half till the season starts to somehow try and conclude buying a top quality first choice centre back and get him bedded into the team.

 

Absolutely and the van Dyke situation has arisen entirely because of what has gone before last season and the season before. Let's face it everyone in football knows Les Reed and how to play him, he says one thing but "wink, wink, nudge, nudge we know old Les will bottle it and cave in".

 

This is why as a fanbase we must stand united in our determination that van Dyke must not be sold in any circumstances at any price this year. As I've suggested before we fans must not "give permission" to Reed to sell the player by effectively growing tired of the saga and chorusing the "get rid at any price" line. At the moment 'poor' old Les is on hook but we fans MUST ABSOLUTELY NOT be his let-out clause. If we stand firm he'll have little option but to stand firm over this matter.

[Wurzel]

Personally, I'd invite companies to sponsor VVD's wages every week.

It would be an absolute laugh: "this week, Virgil Van Dijk's childish petulance will be sponsored by Paddy Power".

We could turn him into a complete joke.

 

This I would love to see. And thinking back over some of our media teams efforts - Dr Barry Gale, #TaylorAnnounced to name a couple - we could really turn the situation to our advantage

[derry]

From what I have read, he has not done that, Pellegrino was the one who insisted that he train alone as he felt that team spirit may be affected !

VVD and his advisors are clearly trying to avoid 'strike' accusations as this would negatively impact on their financial position. That is why the best tactic for SFC is to sit it out !

IMHO of course !

 

He is reported to have said that he wasn't feeling right to play.

[Charlie Wayman]

It is also worth pointing out that if Barcelona can't keep a player, it isn't really our board's fault if they end up selling VVD.

 

Provided that they can get £196 million quid for him then.... ?

[SKD]

Personally, I'd invite companies to sponsor VVD's wages every week.

It would be an absolute laugh: "this week, Virgil Van Dijk's childish petulance will be sponsored by Paddy Power".

We could turn him into a complete joke.

 

Fantastic idea and I actually think companies would buy into it as it really sticks 2 fingers up to bigger clubs, agents and greedy players whilst it would also receive massive coverage. Not that it'll ever happen, but you have to question if we can legally do this though, surely the player would have some sort of image rights in his contract.

[Block 5]

Fantastic idea and I actually think companies would buy into it as it really sticks 2 fingers up to bigger clubs, agents and greedy players whilst it would also receive massive coverage. Not that it'll ever happen, but you have to question if we can legally do this though, surely the player would have some sort of image rights in his contract.

There are untold hilarious ways to circumvent that.

We wouldn't even need to mention his name.

 

"This week, a south coast club's centre back's wages will be sponsored by...

Pampers"

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

[angelman]

Absolutely and the van Dyke situation has arisen entirely because of what has gone before last season and the season before. Let's face it everyone in football knows Les Reed and how to play him, he says one thing but "wink, wink, nudge, nudge we know old Les will bottle it and cave in".

 

This is why as a fanbase we must stand united in our determination that van Dyke must not be sold in any circumstances at any price this year. As I've suggested before we fans must not "give permission" to Reed to sell the player by effectively growing tired of the saga and chorusing the "get rid at any price" line. At the moment 'poor' old Les is on hook but we fans MUST ABSOLUTELY NOT be his let-out clause. If we stand firm he'll have little option but to stand firm over this matter.

 

What a load of crap, and you can't even spell his name right for FFS.

[benjii]

The Irish Independent claims to have inside sources at the club. Here they claim that Saints are more determined than ever to keep VVD, and that VVD is "badly advised":

 

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/badly-advised-virgil-van-dijk-may-have-ruined-his-chances-of-a-dream-move-to-liverpool-35993867.html

 

Interesting and sounds encouraging.

[Saint Albert]

There are untold hilarious ways to circumvent that.

We wouldn't even need to mention his name.

 

"This week, a south coast club's centre back's wages will be sponsored by...

Pampers"

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

As good as it may feel for a jilted fanbase, I don't think that publicly embarrassing VVD in this manner is the way to go, particularly if the club has any ambition for him to play for the team again.

[Block 5]

As good as it may feel for a jilted fanbase, I don't think that publicly embarrassing VVD in this manner is the way to go, particularly if the club has any ambition for him to play for the team again.

As I said in the op, some of this is just being flippant.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

[angelman]

Interesting and sounds encouraging.

 

Depends on the state of the bridges and how many have been burnt beyond repair. I suspect that the club have the hump with LFC rather than VVD, but as the article states, a marker has to be laid down. It might cost a bit in the short term, but pay in the long term. The club has to plan for the present and future, and players upping sticks on a whim (or when they have been tapped up) is no way to plan. A 6 year contract in this day and age you expect to last longer than 1 year.

 

Its a sorry state of affairs. Maybe Jansen thought after his Koeman crap that he could walk over us. Maybe Liverpool thought that they could to. And anyone saying VVD has been badly advised, I would ask when do football players actually take responsibility for themselves. He was 25 when he pulled this **** and surely he can be a big boy rather than being manipulated by his agent and LFC.

[Saint Albert]

Le Tissier on TalkSport: VVD's antics unprofessional and distasteful...

 

https://talksport.com/football/listen-matt-le-tissier-slams-unprofessional-virgil-van-dijk-and-insists-southampton-could

[ALWAYS_SFC]

What a load of crap, and you can't even spell his name right for FFS.

 

Again

[Jimmy_D]

Depends on the state of the bridges and how many have been burnt beyond repair. I suspect that the club have the hump with LFC rather than VVD, but as the article states, a marker has to be laid down. It might cost a bit in the short term, but pay in the long term. The club has to plan for the present and future, and players upping sticks on a whim (or when they have been tapped up) is no way to plan. A 6 year contract in this day and age you expect to last longer than 1 year.

 

Its a sorry state of affairs. Maybe Jansen thought after his Koeman crap that he could walk over us. Maybe Liverpool thought that they could to. And anyone saying VVD has been badly advised, I would ask when do football players actually take responsibility for themselves. He was 25 when he pulled this **** and surely he can be a big boy rather than being manipulated by his agent and LFC.

 

A few seasons ago, I'd have said it was pessimistic to only expect 2 years out of a player that had just signed a 5 year contract...

 

It's just plain weird that either the player or Liverpool are EXPECTING this to go through.

 

With the rate of inflation in football transfer fees these days, every year he's got left is worth increasingly more. I'd say even at £75M he's being undervalued.

[Pip]

The Irish Independent claims to have inside sources at the club. Here they claim that Saints are more determined than ever to keep VVD, and that VVD is "badly advised":

 

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/badly-advised-virgil-van-dijk-may-have-ruined-his-chances-of-a-dream-move-to-liverpool-35993867.html

 

I also liked this part - Van Dijk’s value has soared in a summer that has seen defenders transferred for huge sums of money across Europe, with the £70m price tag that was placed on the Dutchman in some quarters earlier this summer now needing to be revised.

 

Shall we go for about £100m now?!

[darren2]

Lets just say VVD is on £85,000 per week. That equates to just over 4 million a year. So you can guarantee that if the club want 75 million it'll be more viable financially to let him rot in the reserves for a season than to take £60m

[Jimmy_D]

The Irish Independent claims to have inside sources at the club. Here they claim that Saints are more determined than ever to keep VVD, and that VVD is "badly advised":

 

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/badly-advised-virgil-van-dijk-may-have-ruined-his-chances-of-a-dream-move-to-liverpool-35993867.html

 

Sounds to me like we're giving van Dijk the narrative to come back in after we've not sold him. Blame the agent, get his head down, play well, fans happy.

[darren2]

^ The way prices are going up, we'd make that back next summer

[angelman]

Sounds to me like we're giving van Dijk the narrative to come back in after we've not sold him. Blame the agent, get his head down, play well, fans happy.

 

The problem with that is, why did he change agent a few months after signing a 6 year contract? He decided to do it. He knew what he was doing. He knew what that agent would do (and I am sure the club did as well). Sure he's a football player, but FFS, he was 25 and at some stage he has to take responsibility for his own actions and decisions.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Why on earth would we do that ? To accept a cut price deal from Liverpool would be the worst of all worlds. Crazy stuff !!!

 

 

Depends on what constitutes a "cut price deal". If we want £75 million & Liverpool are only prepared to pay £60 million, is it a "cut price deal" if City & Chelsea will only pay £50 million? Surely a players value is defined by the market, not by the selling club's valuation.

 

Personally, I think a compromise is on the cards with us taking less than we want & them paying more than they wanted to.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrfahaji]

The question should be how many chances did we create as the actual ability of our forwards to get it in the net was **** poor even penalties were beyond them at the end of last season.

 

Yes true, although the gist of my original post remains!

[verlaine1979]

The question should be how many chances did we create as the actual ability of our forwards to get it in the net was **** poor even penalties were beyond them at the end of last season.

 

Answer: not as many as your question seems to imply we did.

[Jimmy_D]

Depends on what constitutes a "cut price deal". If we want £75 million & Liverpool are only prepared to pay £60 million, is it a "cut price deal" if City & Chelsea will only pay £50 million? Surely a players value is defined by the market, not by the selling club's valuation.

 

Personally, I think a compromise is on the cards with us taking less than we want & them paying more than they wanted to.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Or we just keep hold of him because no one can afford him.

[Jimmy_D]

The problem with that is, why did he change agent a few months after signing a 6 year contract? He decided to do it. He knew what he was doing. He knew what that agent would do (and I am sure the club did as well). Sure he's a football player, but FFS, he was 25 and at some stage he has to take responsibility for his own actions and decisions.

 

I'd guess he was approached by the agency and they offered to represent him, maybe even for free, but taking a cut of any transfer fee due to him. A player like him at a club like Southampton would normally end up being pretty lucrative eventually.

[Highfield Saint]

Depends on what constitutes a "cut price deal". If we want £75 million & Liverpool are only prepared to pay £60 million, is it a "cut price deal" if City & Chelsea will only pay £50 million? Surely a players value is defined by the market, not by the selling club's valuation.

 

Personally, I think a compromise is on the cards with us taking less than we want & them paying more than they wanted to.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We get what we want and they pay the price they think is right if VVD puts in a transfer request. He then most probably goes to Chelsea

[Diabolus Ex Machina]

Depends on what constitutes a "cut price deal". If we want £75 million & Liverpool are only prepared to pay £60 million, is it a "cut price deal" if City & Chelsea will only pay £50 million? Surely a players value is defined by the market, not by the selling club's valuation.

 

Personally, I think a compromise is on the cards with us taking less than we want & them paying more than they wanted to.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

While there's some truth that the market defines a players value you have missed the point that we do not actually want to sell. This is not a bargaining situation. We want to keep the player but there is a price we will sell at if it is met. No-one is willing to match this price hence we won't sell. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

I repeat we neither want to or need to sell van Dijk and so any deal should be on our terms including the price of the player in question. The tapping up, the media speculation and the sulking/striking whichever it may be are all designed to get us to want to get rid of the player and to therefore reduce our asking price. If we really do want to keep the player we just need to stand firm. You seem to have decided that we want to get rid of Van Dijk at any cost which is the opposite we have heard rumoured.

[SKD]

Depends on what constitutes a "cut price deal". If we want £75 million & Liverpool are only prepared to pay £60 million, is it a "cut price deal" if City & Chelsea will only pay £50 million? Surely a players value is defined by the market, not by the selling club's valuation.

 

Personally, I think a compromise is on the cards with us taking less than we want & them paying more than they wanted to.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

£10-£15m is nothing in today's market it's a JayRod or a Fonte.... So I'd sell him to Chelsea or City, bring in some real quality with the £50m and keep fans happy.

[Diabolus Ex Machina]

£10-£15m is nothing in today's market it's a JayRod or a Fonte.... So I'd sell him to Chelsea or City, bring in some real quality with the £50m and keep fans happy.

 

2 seasons ago that £10-15m bought us a Van Dijk. I know prices are getting silly but I believe good players can still be found for that amount (or at least not a huge amount more). At the least it would help pay the wages of any 'quality' players we bought in.

 

Besides, you just know after 1 season with a Pool/City/Chelsea that the Media will be proclaiming him to be worth £90m or £100m+ just for pulling on their shirt. We have to maximise the value if we sell because someone will pay it if they really want him bad enough and they know they can get a higher fee later.

[angelman]

£15m is what Wolves and Boro are spending in the league below us.

[eurosaint]

He is reported to have said that he wasn't feeling right to play.

 

I haven't seen word about that but if he has then surely the club can dock his wages ??

I suppose that none of us know the real facts but if he refuses to play, then (contractually) it's a different ball game !!

[pluto]

The situation is a complete disaster and the isolation of VVD has made it worse.

 

No other club now are wanting a CB that would be in the first eleven, Chelsea brought in the Roma fella and City have their CBs sorted.

 

I don't see a foreign club paying out £60M and so that just leaves the dippers and we cant sell to them.

[Jimmy_D]

The situation is a complete disaster and the isolation of VVD has made it worse.

 

No other club now are wanting a CB that would be in the first eleven, Chelsea brought in the Roma fella and City have their CBs sorted.

 

I don't see a foreign club paying out £60M and so that just leaves the dippers and we cant sell to them.

 

Oh no, how terrible, he might end up having to stay here.

[Lets B Avenue]

The situation is a complete disaster and the isolation of VVD has made it worse.

 

No other club now are wanting a CB that would be in the first eleven, Chelsea brought in the Roma fella and City have their CBs sorted.

 

I don't see a foreign club paying out £60M and so that just leaves the dippers and we cant sell to them.

 

So not really a "disaster". Complete or any other type.

 

And how have City sorted their CBs? By buying 3 full backs?

 

Genius that Pep fella.

[SKD]

2 seasons ago that £10-15m bought us a Van Dijk. I know prices are getting silly but I believe good players can still be found for that amount (or at least not a huge amount more). At the least it would help pay the wages of any 'quality' players we bought in.

 

Besides, you just know after 1 season with a Pool/City/Chelsea that the Media will be proclaiming him to be worth £90m or £100m+ just for pulling on their shirt. We have to maximise the value if we sell because someone will pay it if they really want him bad enough and they know they can get a higher fee later.

 

If that is the case, add a 20% rather than 10% sell on fee, that'll generate an extra £5-10m.. problem solved.

 

We cannot sell to Liverpool, regardless of what they are willing to pay. End of.

[pluto]

So not really a "disaster". Complete or any other type.

 

And how have City sorted their CBs? By buying 3 full backs?

 

Genius that Pep fella.

 

Its a complete and utter disaster and reality is that its totally unhealthy for the club and that's why the player and agent still have the upper hand.

[saintrich]

The situation is a complete disaster and the isolation of VVD has made it worse.

 

No other club now are wanting a CB that would be in the first eleven, Chelsea brought in the Roma fella and City have their CBs sorted.

 

I don't see a foreign club paying out £60M and so that just leaves the dippers and we cant sell to them.

 

 

 

Guardiola said this week they are in the market for another CB.

[Jimmy_D]

Its a complete and utter disaster and reality is that its totally unhealthy for the club and that's why the player and agent still have the upper hand.

 

Still failing to see how anything you just said there is remotely true.

[S-Clarke]

Its a complete and utter disaster and reality is that its totally unhealthy for the club and that's why the player and agent still have the upper hand.

 

Waffle.