Virgil Transfer Rumours - Summer 17

[shurlock]

Would suggest liverpool made an unwanted bid however I thought they wouldn't make a move unless we gave them the green light? Not sure why we would reject a bid close to valuation otherwise though.

 

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

If you were telling a story, it would make for a nice cliffhanger...

Edited 22 August, 2017 by shurlock

[aintforever]

Not sure why we would reject a bid close to valuation otherwise though.

 

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

No reason why we should accept a penny below our valuation, we don't need to sell. If VVD is still here when the window shuts he will have no option but to get on with his job.

[egg]

Yes, assume it has to be a CB. The other possible could be Yoshida due to contract running down, but hope not.

 

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

Gardos is the obvious candidate but I can't see we'd have many takers. The alternative is a full back going. We have 3 left backs, plus 2 right backs and Stephens (who's not guaranteed a start at CB) who we've never really seen at RB but he's played there for Boro and international level.

[californiasaint]

I see mistakes all over this transaction.

 

Unless the board is willing to pay to play with the big clubs, then the decision must be to sell VVD at the highest price in order to reinvest the funds in the club.

 

Holding on to a piece like VVD for one or two windows will not do much for the club in the long term. It is even highly unlikely that it will result in short term success like a Europe/Champions berth this season.Obtaining a maximum price for VVD will do much more for the club's future elevation.

 

Looking to the issue of maximum price, we can see VVD's maximum price will most likely be achieved during this window given the inflated transfer market, individual team needs, and a distinct likelihood of VVD's future value being lower given several circumstances including injury history, age, and a potential lack of showcase opportunities.

 

I hope the club is engaging in posturing with the hopes of extracting the maximum price for VVD this window, but regardless, they have already made a fundamental mistake taking a hard "refusing to sell" stance.

 

First, if VVD does ultimately sell during this window, the board publicly loses credibility (again). The board also shows that players ultimately have the upperhand, and that sulking tactics are effective.

 

Second, the public difficulty associated with this transfer will discourage future players of VVD's caliber from coming to the Saints as part of a "stepping up" platform. Like it or not, the Saints are currently a means to an end, and not a final destination. In the absence of willing spending by the board on caliber players, we require several more VVD/Mane types, and the funds received from those players, to assemble a top flight team. Things that discourage quality, undervalued black-box selections from coming to the team are mistakes, pure and simple.

 

Finally, it's unlikely that they are even able to extract maximum price as certain clubs may believe that VVD is actually not for sale and be less inclined to spend recruiting resources on him (particularly foreign clubs). Fewer bidders equals less opportunity for a bidding war and a lower maximum price.

 

In short, the board has thoroughly rodgered themselves on this one. Time to extract the most value for VVD as possible and live for another day.

[angelman]

I got to "pay to play with big clubs" and gave up with your diatribe. We hold his registration. We don't need to pay.

[Shroppie]

I see mistakes all over this transaction.

 

Unless the board is willing to pay to play with the big clubs, then the decision must be to sell VVD at the highest price in order to reinvest the funds in the club.

 

Holding on to a piece like VVD for one or two windows will not do much for the club in the long term. It is even highly unlikely that it will result in short term success like a Europe/Champions berth this season.Obtaining a maximum price for VVD will do much more for the club's future elevation.

 

Looking to the issue of maximum price, we can see VVD's maximum price will most likely be achieved during this window given the inflated transfer market, individual team needs, and a distinct likelihood of VVD's future value being lower given several circumstances including injury history, age, and a potential lack of showcase opportunities.

 

I hope the club is engaging in posturing with the hopes of extracting the maximum price for VVD this window, but regardless, they have already made a fundamental mistake taking a hard "refusing to sell" stance.

 

First, if VVD does ultimately sell during this window, the board publicly loses credibility (again). The board also shows that players ultimately have the upperhand, and that sulking tactics are effective.

 

Second, the public difficulty associated with this transfer will discourage future players of VVD's caliber from coming to the Saints as part of a "stepping up" platform. Like it or not, the Saints are currently a means to an end, and not a final destination. In the absence of willing spending by the board on caliber players, we require several more VVD/Mane types, and the funds received from those players, to assemble a top flight team. Things that discourage quality, undervalued black-box selections from coming to the team are mistakes, pure and simple.

 

Finally, it's unlikely that they are even able to extract maximum price as certain clubs may believe that VVD is actually not for sale and be less inclined to spend recruiting resources on him (particularly foreign clubs). Fewer bidders equals less opportunity for a bidding war and a lower maximum price.

 

In short, the board has thoroughly rodgered themselves on this one. Time to extract the most value for VVD as possible and live for another day.

I've rarely disagreed so totally with virtually everything in a post.

 

I'm not going to repeat what I've made clear before. But I will ask, if Saints have to be seen as a stepping-stone selling club to attract players, how exactly do they make the step up to a club retaining their best players, at least for a decent part of their contracts, without at some point making the statement that they won't sell at the first sign of a player strop?

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Redslo]

I see mistakes all over this transaction.

 

Unless the board is willing to pay to play with the big clubs, then the decision must be to sell VVD at the highest price in order to reinvest the funds in the club.

 

Holding on to a piece like VVD for one or two windows will not do much for the club in the long term. It is even highly unlikely that it will result in short term success like a Europe/Champions berth this season.Obtaining a maximum price for VVD will do much more for the club's future elevation.

 

Looking to the issue of maximum price, we can see VVD's maximum price will most likely be achieved during this window given the inflated transfer market, individual team needs, and a distinct likelihood of VVD's future value being lower given several circumstances including injury history, age, and a potential lack of showcase opportunities.

 

I hope the club is engaging in posturing with the hopes of extracting the maximum price for VVD this window, but regardless, they have already made a fundamental mistake taking a hard "refusing to sell" stance.

 

First, if VVD does ultimately sell during this window, the board publicly loses credibility (again). The board also shows that players ultimately have the upperhand, and that sulking tactics are effective.

 

Second, the public difficulty associated with this transfer will discourage future players of VVD's caliber from coming to the Saints as part of a "stepping up" platform. Like it or not, the Saints are currently a means to an end, and not a final destination. In the absence of willing spending by the board on caliber players, we require several more VVD/Mane types, and the funds received from those players, to assemble a top flight team. Things that discourage quality, undervalued black-box selections from coming to the team are mistakes, pure and simple.

 

Finally, it's unlikely that they are even able to extract maximum price as certain clubs may believe that VVD is actually not for sale and be less inclined to spend recruiting resources on him (particularly foreign clubs). Fewer bidders equals less opportunity for a bidding war and a lower maximum price.

 

In short, the board has thoroughly rodgered themselves on this one. Time to extract the most value for VVD as possible and live for another day.

 

I think you are basically wrong. Your first reason is only an issue if we sell in this window to Liverpool or for too little money. Otherwise, it is a reason not to sell and to view the club's actions as sensible.

 

You second reason is theoretically plausible, but not really. Players will, instead, learn that we can be used as a platform for their advancement. If they do well here we will over them an improved long term contract. They will learn that they should not take that contract unless they intend to extend their stay here beyond the two or three years implicit in their first contract. We want players to learn that lesson--not the lesson that they can take the big pay boost and signing bonuses and leave after two years anyway.

 

Your final reason presupposes an intent to sell this window. Otherwise it is nonsense.

 

Unless the board caves and sells, they have handled this perfectly. Plus given what other clubs are doing, this summer is sending a message that players on long term contracts don't always get what they want which is a useful message to send out.

[Wade Garrett]

I see mistakes all over this transaction.

 

Unless the board is willing to pay to play with the big clubs, then the decision must be to sell VVD at the highest price in order to reinvest the funds in the club.

 

Holding on to a piece like VVD for one or two windows will not do much for the club in the long term. It is even highly unlikely that it will result in short term success like a Europe/Champions berth this season.Obtaining a maximum price for VVD will do much more for the club's future elevation.

 

Looking to the issue of maximum price, we can see VVD's maximum price will most likely be achieved during this window given the inflated transfer market, individual team needs, and a distinct likelihood of VVD's future value being lower given several circumstances including injury history, age, and a potential lack of showcase opportunities.

 

I hope the club is engaging in posturing with the hopes of extracting the maximum price for VVD this window, but regardless, they have already made a fundamental mistake taking a hard "refusing to sell" stance.

 

First, if VVD does ultimately sell during this window, the board publicly loses credibility (again). The board also shows that players ultimately have the upperhand, and that sulking tactics are effective.

 

Second, the public difficulty associated with this transfer will discourage future players of VVD's caliber from coming to the Saints as part of a "stepping up" platform. Like it or not, the Saints are currently a means to an end, and not a final destination. In the absence of willing spending by the board on caliber players, we require several more VVD/Mane types, and the funds received from those players, to assemble a top flight team. Things that discourage quality, undervalued black-box selections from coming to the team are mistakes, pure and simple.

 

Finally, it's unlikely that they are even able to extract maximum price as certain clubs may believe that VVD is actually not for sale and be less inclined to spend recruiting resources on him (particularly foreign clubs). Fewer bidders equals less opportunity for a bidding war and a lower maximum price.

 

In short, the board has thoroughly rodgered themselves on this one. Time to extract the most value for VVD as possible and live for another day.

 

Was going to post a reasoned response to this. But I can't be bothered, so here goes.

 

What a load of b*llocks.

[aintforever]

I see mistakes all over this transaction.

 

Unless the board is willing to pay to play with the big clubs, then the decision must be to sell VVD at the highest price in order to reinvest the funds in the club.

 

Holding on to a piece like VVD for one or two windows will not do much for the club in the long term. It is even highly unlikely that it will result in short term success like a Europe/Champions berth this season.Obtaining a maximum price for VVD will do much more for the club's future elevation.

 

Looking to the issue of maximum price, we can see VVD's maximum price will most likely be achieved during this window given the inflated transfer market, individual team needs, and a distinct likelihood of VVD's future value being lower given several circumstances including injury history, age, and a potential lack of showcase opportunities.

 

I hope the club is engaging in posturing with the hopes of extracting the maximum price for VVD this window, but regardless, they have already made a fundamental mistake taking a hard "refusing to sell" stance.

 

First, if VVD does ultimately sell during this window, the board publicly loses credibility (again). The board also shows that players ultimately have the upperhand, and that sulking tactics are effective.

 

Second, the public difficulty associated with this transfer will discourage future players of VVD's caliber from coming to the Saints as part of a "stepping up" platform. Like it or not, the Saints are currently a means to an end, and not a final destination. In the absence of willing spending by the board on caliber players, we require several more VVD/Mane types, and the funds received from those players, to assemble a top flight team. Things that discourage quality, undervalued black-box selections from coming to the team are mistakes, pure and simple.

 

Finally, it's unlikely that they are even able to extract maximum price as certain clubs may believe that VVD is actually not for sale and be less inclined to spend recruiting resources on him (particularly foreign clubs). Fewer bidders equals less opportunity for a bidding war and a lower maximum price.

 

In short, the board has thoroughly rodgered themselves on this one. Time to extract the most value for VVD as possible and live for another day.

 

What a load of nonsense, the board have done the right thing standing firm. If we end up selling before the window then do be it but we have shown we are no push-overs.

[egg]

I see mistakes all over this transaction.

 

Unless the board is willing to pay to play with the big clubs, then the decision must be to sell VVD at the highest price in order to reinvest the funds in the club.

 

Holding on to a piece like VVD for one or two windows will not do much for the club in the long term. It is even highly unlikely that it will result in short term success like a Europe/Champions berth this season.Obtaining a maximum price for VVD will do much more for the club's future elevation.

 

Looking to the issue of maximum price, we can see VVD's maximum price will most likely be achieved during this window given the inflated transfer market, individual team needs, and a distinct likelihood of VVD's future value being lower given several circumstances including injury history, age, and a potential lack of showcase opportunities.

 

I hope the club is engaging in posturing with the hopes of extracting the maximum price for VVD this window, but regardless, they have already made a fundamental mistake taking a hard "refusing to sell" stance.

 

First, if VVD does ultimately sell during this window, the board publicly loses credibility (again). The board also shows that players ultimately have the upperhand, and that sulking tactics are effective.

 

Second, the public difficulty associated with this transfer will discourage future players of VVD's caliber from coming to the Saints as part of a "stepping up" platform. Like it or not, the Saints are currently a means to an end, and not a final destination. In the absence of willing spending by the board on caliber players, we require several more VVD/Mane types, and the funds received from those players, to assemble a top flight team. Things that discourage quality, undervalued black-box selections from coming to the team are mistakes, pure and simple.

 

Finally, it's unlikely that they are even able to extract maximum price as certain clubs may believe that VVD is actually not for sale and be less inclined to spend recruiting resources on him (particularly foreign clubs). Fewer bidders equals less opportunity for a bidding war and a lower maximum price.

 

In short, the board has thoroughly rodgered themselves on this one. Time to extract the most value for VVD as possible and live for another day.

 

I agree with most of that. I made your point 2 a while ago and was told that I was in a minority of 1. We are a stepping stone club, and potentially very good players will only sign if they have an assurance, which they see the club delivering to other players, that they will be allowed to move on when the time comes. If we don't do that we sign WBA type players, or WHA type mercenaries .

 

However, I also hate players holding a gun to our head but the stepping stone model means that this situation can happen and will happen again and needs careful management. On this occasion it hasn't gone well and I'd hazard a guess that both sides had different understandings of what may happen further down the track.

 

Like you I think that the club needs to get out of this sharpish, probably with a 'we accepted an offer above our valuation' type deal. That we save a degree of face, and retain our appeal to the next Mane/VVD etc.

[Saint_Ash]

I think you are basically wrong. Your first reason is only an issue if we sell in this window to Liverpool or for too little money. Otherwise, it is a reason not to sell and to view the club's actions as sensible.

 

You second reason is theoretically plausible, but not really. Players will, instead, learn that we can be used as a platform for their advancement. If they do well here we will over them an improved long term contract. They will learn that they should not take that contract unless they intend to extend their stay here beyond the two or three years implicit in their first contract. We want players to learn that lesson--not the lesson that they can take the big pay boost and signing bonuses and leave after two years anyway.

 

Your final reason presupposes an intent to sell this window. Otherwise it is nonsense.

 

Unless the board caves and sells, they have handled this perfectly. Plus given what other clubs are doing, this summer is sending a message that players on long term contracts don't always get what they want which is a useful message to send out.

Thank you, saved me writing something similar to his waffle. I'm bored of people saying we won't attract the big players because of our strong position on VvD. As well as the points highlighted above it might do us good for the good players we have to see we have some ambition and won't bend over backwards at the first opportunity.

[egg]

But I will ask, if Saints have to be seen as a stepping-stone selling club to attract players, how exactly do they make the step up to a club retaining their best players, at least for a decent part of their contracts...

 

That question gets to what we all, as fans, want the club to do. The reality is that we're not a top 6 club and won't become one. We're at our limit, at least league wise. We therefore have to operate as a business. Competing on the field, buying then nurturing and developing talent, selling it, repeat. That's not what you want us to do, nor do I, but that's where we are. If we hold good players back we don't get to sign them in the first place. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

[Gemmel]

What a load of b*llocks.

 

I'm with this man

[californiasaint]

I got to "pay to play with big clubs" and gave up with your diatribe. We hold his registration. We don't need to pay.

 

When teams have operating budgets that literally dwarf yours in order to sustainably compete with them you must be willing to spend.

 

I've rarely disagreed so totally with virtually everything in a post.

 

how exactly do they make the step up to a club retaining their best players, at least for a decent part of their contracts, without at some point making the statement that they won't sell at the first sign of a player strop?

 

Develop a competitive team and pay high wages so that the players actually want to be there, which requires developing a deep enough team to compete in Europe/Champions, which requires investing and re-investing. VVD / Mane / etc would be far less interested in leaving if the Saints had made it to Europa/Champions. This does not happen overnight, and more important, it does not happen with just one man.

 

And it especially does not happen when you lower reinvestment value by taking meaningless principled statements. A culture of winning is the best a club can do and even then it may not be enough. Barcelona just said they weren't going to sell Neymar. Look how that turned out!

 

I think you are basically wrong. Your first reason is only an issue if we sell in this window to Liverpool or for too little money. Otherwise, it is a reason not to sell and to view the club's actions as sensible.

 

If the board sells after saying they are not going to sell, at any price, to any team, they lose credibility.

 

You second reason is theoretically plausible, but not really. Players will, instead, learn that we can be used as a platform for their advancement. If they do well here we will over them an improved long term contract. They will learn that they should not take that contract unless they intend to extend their stay here beyond the two or three years implicit in their first contract. We want players to learn that lesson--not the lesson that they can take the big pay boost and signing bonuses and leave after two years anyway.

 

You are raising the sub issue -- now players will come to negotiate and demand shorter term higher value contracts if they're going to play for the Saints or else they'll walk!

 

Your final reason presupposes an intent to sell this window. Otherwise it is nonsense.

 

The entire argument presupposes a requirement to sell at the highest price, which I believe is this window. That may be nonsense, but it's my position!

 

Unless the board caves and sells, they have handled this perfectly. Plus given what other clubs are doing, this summer is sending a message that players on long term contracts don't always get what they want which is a useful message to send out.

 

If VVD sits out the season, damages the team environment, and leaves for a paltry sum next year, which is all entirely on the table, you think the board has played this perfectly?

 

In my mind perfect is getting way more money than VVD is worth and signing some exciting players who give us a chance to crack Europa/Champions this season. (Which I do not think is happening with/without VVD.)

[View From The Top]

Would suggest liverpool made an unwanted bid however I thought they wouldn't make a move unless we gave them the green light? Not sure why we would reject a bid close to valuation otherwise though.

 

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

If it was Liverpool (I'm 100% sure it's not) then Saints will immediately report them to the FA and the info the club have, so the gossip is up north, could see Liverpool getting a transfer ban.

 

Saints won't sell. That message has been loud & clear and the clubs have accepted that. That said, I was told last week, standby for the insane end of window bids incoming.

 

If they sell then VvD has won and all players will know, as will every other club, that put the pressure on then Saints will buckle. Saints cannot afford to back down now.

[egg]

When teams have operating budgets that literally dwarf yours in order to sustainably compete with them you must be willing to spend.

 

 

 

Develop a competitive team and pay high wages so that the players actually want to be there, which requires developing a deep enough team to compete in Europe/Champions, which requires investing and re-investing. VVD / Mane / etc would be far less interested in leaving if the Saints had made it to Europa/Champions. This does not happen overnight, and more important, it does not happen with just one man.

 

And it especially does not happen when you lower reinvestment value by taking meaningless principled statements. A culture of winning is the best a club can do and even then it may not be enough. Barcelona just said they weren't going to sell Neymar. Look how that turned out!

 

 

 

If the board sells after saying they are not going to sell, at any price, to any team, they lose credibility.

 

 

 

You are raising the sub issue -- now players will come to negotiate and demand shorter term higher value contracts if they're going to play for the Saints or else they'll walk!

 

 

 

The entire argument presupposes a requirement to sell at the highest price, which I believe is this window. That may be nonsense, but it's my position!

 

 

 

If VVD sits out the season, damages the team environment, and leaves for a paltry sum next year, which is all entirely on the table, you think the board has played this perfectly?

 

In my mind perfect is getting way more money than VVD is worth and signing some exciting players who give us a chance to crack Europa/Champions this season. (Which I do not think is happening with/without VVD.)

 

You're wasting your breath pal. The masses think we should let him rot until we decide to sell him to who we want for what we want. Apparently that's how it works, and doesn't damage the club at all.

[Shroppie]

That question gets to what we all, as fans, want the club to do. The reality is that we're not a top 6 club and won't become one. We're at our limit, at least league wise. We therefore have to operate as a business. Competing on the field, buying then nurturing and developing talent, selling it, repeat. That's not what you want us to do, nor do I, but that's where we are. If we hold good players back we don't get to sign them in the first place. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

Strange then that our stance hasn't stopped us signing Hoedt. It's your attitude that would hold the club back.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[californiasaint]

You're wasting your breath pal. The masses think we should let him rot until we decide to sell him to who we want for what we want. Apparently that's how it works, and doesn't damage the club at all.

 

To be fair, the masses are the ones paying for the season tickets, and they appear to be willing to do so regardless of the product on the field, so there's something to be said for keeping them happy even if it means shooting the team's forward progress in the foot.

 

If VVD goes for an astronomical price somewhere outside of this window I will happily eat my hat. I just don't think it's statistically likely, and the club could squander a massive chance at acquiring very valuable reinvestment funds. And for what?

 

Third post for the day. Try not to get too upset while I'm gone!

[Batman]

still going on about it

 

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=336283.1920#msg15539453

[S-Clarke]

still going on about it

 

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=336283.1920#msg15539453

 

They are so special up there. The coutinho thread is the polar opposite to the VVD thread, everything they're *****ing about Barca doing, they're doing themselves.

 

Weird, weird club. Always the victims.

[Shroppie]

I agree with most of that. I made your point 2 a while ago and was told that I was in a minority of 1. We are a stepping stone club, and potentially very good players will only sign if they have an assurance, which they see the club delivering to other players, that they will be allowed to move on when the time comes. If we don't do that we sign WBA type players, or WHA type mercenaries .

 

However, I also hate players holding a gun to our head but the stepping stone model means that this situation can happen and will happen again and needs careful management. On this occasion it hasn't gone well and I'd hazard a guess that both sides had different understandings of what may happen further down the track.

 

Like you I think that the club needs to get out of this sharpish, probably with a 'we accepted an offer above our valuation' type deal. That we save a degree of face, and retain our appeal to the next Mane/VVD etc.

That really is a nonsensical argument. Saints have a great record of developing players. Would-be superstars won't jump straight into a top six club: they still need a stepping stone. The only thing that will change is that they'll have to stay a bit longer and not get greedy after 1 year of a contract. And the experience with us will be better as more players stay longer.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[egg]

Strange then that our stance hasn't stopped us signing Hoedt. It's your attitude that would hold the club back.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

Not strange at all. For every future Mane/vvd/alderweireld there'll be a steady player who's about right for our level and will stick around. Think yoshida/davis. Then there's the players who can't believe their luck and would never be demanding a move while under contract , ie Martina/Pied.

 

Those players realise that there are layers and probably know where they are in the layer cake. The club do as well. Alas, the fans (mostly) don't.

Edited 22 August, 2017 by egg

[Toadhall Saint]

still going on about it

 

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=336283.1920#msg15539453

 

Twaddle

[Diabolus Ex Machina]

I agree with most of that. I made your point 2 a while ago and was told that I was in a minority of 1. We are a stepping stone club, and potentially very good players will only sign if they have an assurance, which they see the club delivering to other players, that they will be allowed to move on when the time comes. If we don't do that we sign WBA type players, or WHA type mercenaries .

 

However, I also hate players holding a gun to our head but the stepping stone model means that this situation can happen and will happen again and needs careful management. On this occasion it hasn't gone well and I'd hazard a guess that both sides had different understandings of what may happen further down the track.

 

Like you I think that the club needs to get out of this sharpish, probably with a 'we accepted an offer above our valuation' type deal. That we save a degree of face, and retain our appeal to the next Mane/VVD etc.

 

I honestly don't see how this stops us being seen as a good stepping stone club? Our record is second to none currently with players regularly going to the top 6 and also getting international recognition. Even the players that have been told to stay another year weren't negatively affected ending up at Spurs (Wanyama) and Man U (Morgan) respectively. The Van Dijk saga is just an affirmation that if a deal is going to be made then it will be on Saints terms which is the way it needs to be done to protect us in future dealings. Liverpool have screwed themselves over with their antics but other clubs seem to have been able to do business with us amicably in the past and i'm sure they will in the future if it's to the benefit of both sides.

 

The reason we get these players in the first place is because we scout them well and are willing to take a risk with them where other clubs won't. If these players were considered that good they'd go straight to a team like Liverpool or Spurs but they don't so we can give them that platform they need to prove themselves - that hasn't changed or do you think the likes of a Stoke or a West Ham will make it any more likely for them to get to a top team cos i've seen absolutely no evidence of it so far!

[egg]

That really is a nonsensical argument. Saints have a great record of developing players. Would-be superstars won't jump straight into a top six club: they still need a stepping stone. The only thing that will change is that they'll have to stay a bit longer and not get greedy after 1 year of a contract. And the experience with us will be better as more players stay longer.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

And you said my post was nonsense! Basically you agree with me (I think) but seem to think that we can decide when the player goes and refer to his contract extension. I keep hearing all this nonsense about contract renewals meaning we can decide when a player moves on. At least I think that's the inference. It doesn't work like that. Nobody believed he would stay for the length of his contract, of course we were going to cash in. The longer the contract the more power we have as a selling club. That contract gave him more cash for a little while but its purpose was to assist us come transfer time.

[darren2]

Sky Sports pushing the VVD to Liverpool is imminent....... They're servants to Liverhampton. Been pushing this over and over. Employ mostly their former players.... so tedious

[egg]

I honestly don't see how this stops us being seen as a good stepping stone club? Our record is second to none currently with players regularly going to the top 6 and also getting international recognition. Even the players that have been told to stay another year weren't negatively affected ending up at Spurs (Wanyama) and Man U (Morgan) respectively. The Van Dijk saga is just an affirmation that if a deal is going to be made then it will be on Saints terms which is the way it needs to be done to protect us in future dealings. Liverpool have screwed themselves over with their antics but other clubs seem to have been able to do business with us amicably in the past and i'm sure they will in the future if it's to the benefit of both sides.

 

The reason we get these players in the first place is because we scout them well and are willing to take a risk with them where other clubs won't. If these players were considered that good they'd go straight to a team like Liverpool or Spurs but they don't so we can give them that platform they need to prove themselves - that hasn't changed or do you think the likes of a Stoke or a West Ham will make it any more likely for them to get to a top team cos i've seen absolutely no evidence of it so far!

None of us know what the side deal was re his exit. Obviously there was one, there always is (even if informal) and he was always going to leave. If (and I don't know the position) it's felt by team VVD that we haven't honoured what was apparently agreed (seemingly not the first time) that will make us less attractive. Even if we had no agreement/handshake that we would let him go this window, potential signings will see a club holding back a player who's apparently been offered triple his wages. You may think that won't harm our ability to sign future players (as a stepping stone) but I do.

[S-Clarke]

None of us know what the side deal was re his exit. Obviously there was one, there always is (even if informal) and he was always going to leave. If (and I don't know the position) it's felt by team VVD that we haven't honoured what was apparently agreed (seemingly not the first time) that will make us less attractive. Even if we had no agreement/handshake that we would let him go this window, potential signings will see a club holding back a player who's apparently been offered triple his wages. You may think that won't harm our ability to sign future players (as a stepping stone) but I do.

 

We've just signed Lemina and Hoedt, both young international players with big pedigree. If you think being seen as a 'stepping stone' has anything to do with us being able to sign players then you are daft.

[S-Clarke]

Midfielder Philippe Coutinho will miss the second leg of Liverpool's Champions League play-off against Hoffenheim on Wednesday with illness.

 

Why can't clubs just be honest? Why do they have to make that up? Just say he's going to miss the tie, done. He's obviously not ill, in the same way he obviously didn't have a bad back last week either.

[Ewell]

Sky Sports pushing the VVD to Liverpool is imminent....... They're servants to Liverhampton. Been pushing this over and over. Employ mostly their former players.... so tedious

 

Simple answer is just don't watch that ****! After all they have to invent news to stay in existence, so lets say about 60% of what they report is made up 30% educated guess work and about 10% actually ends up being true.

[egg]

We've just signed Lemina and Hoedt, both young international players with big pedigree. If you think being seen as a 'stepping stone' has anything to do with us being able to sign players then you are daft.

 

Do you think that the VVD situation was not discussed with their agents? Do you think that they didn't seek assurances about what may happen if a CL club came in? If you think the answer to one or both is no then you are daft.

[Professor]

While Virgil is up in the nursery breaking his toys, the grown-ups are downstairs letting him know they are there for him when his tantrum expires. They've even got his friend, Wesley, for him to play with.

Last year, in May 2016, when he signed his 6-year contract and became Saints' highest paid player, Virgil was able to say, “I’m so pleased, I’m so happy. Me and my family have enjoyed it a lot this year. It’s been amazing. It’s only positive. The club is growing and I definitely want to grow with them, that’s how I feel. Hopefully we can make it happen. That’s the plan, to get a lot of achievements going.”

The only change following his injury, is that voices off told of untold him of greater riches elsewhere and that breaking a contract was OK. Southampton helped him with his recovery and continue to offer him first team football in a defence packed with international players so it's difficult for him to blame the club for his change of mind. Little boys who throw tantrums often finish up hurting themselves and that remains a possibility for Virgil if he fails to see that the voices don't have his own interests at heart.

[Shroppie]

And you said my post was nonsense! Basically you agree with me (I think)

 

I keep hearing all this nonsense about contract renewals meaning we can decide when a player moves on. At least I think that's the inference. It doesn't work like that.

 

You think wrong. I disagree with you.

 

And it can work like that. It just needs clubs to wrestle back from control from greedy players and agents and, in case you haven't noticed, it's happening. And not just at Saints.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[S-Clarke]

Do you think that the VVD situation was not discussed with their agents? Do you think that they didn't seek assurances about what may happen if a CL club came in? If you think the answer to one or both is no then you are daft.

 

Well, they both signed anyway. So what's your worry?

[Professor]

Do you think that the VVD situation was not discussed with their agents? Do you think that they didn't seek assurances about what may happen if a CL club came in? If you think the answer to one or both is no then you are daft.

If you think Lemina and Hoedt were told that 5 years in the contract doesn't mean 5 years but just until you want to leave, then it's you who are daft.

[egg]

Well, they both signed anyway. So what's your worry?

 

I'm not worried. They will have signed having asked about the VVD situation and their position should a big move be possible. To have signed they will have been given certain answers to their liking. Those answers will not have been that 'we're letting VVD rot' or that 'we'll hold you to the last day of your contract'. However, if we now act in a way with VVD that concern potential future players we will not sign them.

 

Jeez, I'm gonna watch the telly, this is like pulling teeth.

[egg]

If you think Lemina and Hoedt were told that 5 years in the contract doesn't mean 5 years but just until you want to leave, then it's you who are daft.

 

That's not what I've said. A 5 year contract does not come with the expectation that a player stays for 5 years. Be sensible.

[Diabolus Ex Machina]

None of us know what the side deal was re his exit. Obviously there was one, there always is (even if informal) and he was always going to leave. If (and I don't know the position) it's felt by team VVD that we haven't honoured what was apparently agreed (seemingly not the first time) that will make us less attractive. Even if we had no agreement/handshake that we would let him go this window, potential signings will see a club holding back a player who's apparently been offered triple his wages. You may think that won't harm our ability to sign future players (as a stepping stone) but I do.

 

Again, didn't affect Wanyama moving to a top club, didn't affect Morgan moving to a top club and i'm sure after another season here it wouldn't stop Van Dijk moving on. Also hasn't stopped us signing Hoedt and i'm sure he's seen what's happening especially as it's his Dutch compatriot. Offer a player a big pay rise and first team football in the Prem and i'm willing to believe they wouldn't give two sh*ts about what we've done with other players - especially as they have all moved on to bigger clubs eventually anyway.

 

I do agree it's quite possible that something was said to him about being allowed to leave, I also believe whatever back room dealings happened between him and Liverpool completely scuppered it for both of them so he needs to shoulder some of the blame for the current predicament. Honestly we've heard similar stories about the club before so it wouldn't surprise me if the club did change their stance and as his contract holder that is their prerogative.

 

If we fail to get a player in the future and it's specifically mentioned it's because of the way we deal with players then feel free to say 'I told you so' but i've seen nothing to suggest it will be a problem so far and i'd rather go on the evidence we have than on pure speculation. Besides i'll ask again, which other team outside the top 6 has as good a track record recently of supplying players to the top 6 than us and do you really think they'd be any more willing to part with a potentially top, top player if a top 6 team came calling?

[trousers]

I'm not worried. They will have signed having asked about the VVD situation and their position should a big move be possible. To have signed they will have been given certain answers to their liking. Those answers will not have been that 'we're letting VVD rot' or that 'we'll hold you to the last day of your contract'. However, if we now act in a way with VVD that concern potential future players we will not sign them.

 

Jeez, I'm gonna watch the telly, this is like pulling teeth.

VVD isn't being held to the last day of his contract either.

 

The VVD situation is relatively unique compared to previous departures in that he decided he wanted to leave having just signed a contract extension. (That said, I guess Lallana's situation was fairly similar).

 

Most players who leave for one of the 'top clubs' do so significantly before the end of their contracts and I don't see that changing (if they don't sign an extension)

 

All the VVD situation tells prospective signees is that they shouldn't sign a contract extension unless they want to commit more of their time here. As such, it hasn't damaged our attractiveness to future prospects IMO.

Edited 22 August, 2017 by trousers

[tobes8]

While Virgil is up in the nursery breaking his toys, the grown-ups are downstairs letting him know they are there for him when his tantrum expires. They've even got his friend, Wesley, for him to play with.

Last year, in May 2016, when he signed his 6-year contract and became Saints' highest paid player, Virgil was able to say, “I’m so pleased, I’m so happy. Me and my family have enjoyed it a lot this year. It’s been amazing. It’s only positive. The club is growing and I definitely want to grow with them, that’s how I feel. Hopefully we can make it happen. That’s the plan, to get a lot of achievements going.”

The only change following his injury, is that voices off told of untold him of greater riches elsewhere and that breaking a contract was OK. Southampton helped him with his recovery and continue to offer him first team football in a defence packed with international players so it's difficult for him to blame the club for his change of mind. Little boys who throw tantrums often finish up hurting themselves and that remains a possibility for Virgil if he fails to see that the voices don't have his own interests at heart.

 

So what's changed... issues in the family perhaps? May be why he wants away.

[nta786]

People saying this has consequences for VVD- for me this signifies something for Maya Yoshida...

 

What does this mean for Maya? Will he leave for free next year then? We have 6 centrebacks rignt now, Bednarek must have been bought in for U23s, and will Yoshida sign a contract on the premise of being a 4th choice CB?

 

Or does Hoedts purchase allow hiim to gain experience for year, and when VVD leaves next summer gives us 4 centrebacks in Hoedt, Stephens, Yoshida and Bednarek in the 2018-19 seaason.

[beatlesaint]

People saying this has consequences for VVD- for me this signifies something for Maya Yoshida...

 

What does this mean for Maya? Will he leave for free next year then? We have 6 centrebacks rignt now, Bednarek must have been bought in for U23s, and will Yoshida sign a contract on the premise of being a 4th choice CB?

 

Or does Hoedts purchase allow hiim to gain experience for year, and when VVD leaves next summer gives us 4 centrebacks in Hoedt, Stephens, Yoshida and Bednarek in the 2018-19 seaason.

 

I think you have answered your own question with your last paragraph to be honest.

[shurlock]

People saying this has consequences for VVD- for me this signifies something for Maya Yoshida...

 

What does this mean for Maya? Will he leave for free next year then? We have 6 centrebacks rignt now, Bednarek must have been bought in for U23s, and will Yoshida sign a contract on the premise of being a 4th choice CB?

 

Or does Hoedts purchase allow hiim to gain experience for year, and when VVD leaves next summer gives us 4 centrebacks in Hoedt, Stephens, Yoshida and Bednarek in the 2018-19 seaason.

 

The latter - gives him Hoedt a year to acclimatise and prepare as successor to VVD, hopefully by playing alongside VVD. Better than being thrown into the deep end.

 

Also makes financial sense: the way the market is headed, a £15m player this season will be worth closer to £20m next summer. Good to do our business now as we know we'll need to buy a CB with VVD's inevitable departure.

[Toadhall Saint]

So what's changed... issues in the family perhaps? May be why he wants away.

 

Changed his agent that's what has changed.

[Alain Perrin]

I see mistakes all over this transaction.

......

In short, the board has thoroughly rodgered themselves on this one. Time to extract the most value for VVD as possible and live for another day.

 

I disagree. By standing up to Van Dyke, the club are sending a powerful message to players and clubs alike; Strike and you'll not get your way, and deal underhand and we'll not deal with you.

 

It's a calculated risk that a) Van Dyke needs to lay for the WC b) that whilst Sky rights might stagnate, money over the next few years will still increase due to overseas rights and c) that the Mane type players still want their chance.

 

Fundamentally the club isn't against selling talent, just that we want a fair return in both commitment (i.e. don't sign for six years, play for 6 months and expect to go) and fees (i.e. don't try to lowball us by going public on transfers)

 

If it was me I'd sign players for 5 years with a gentlemans agreement we'll extend after 2 yrs or they can look to go.

[Lets B Avenue]

How long before Mr Advocaat is giving interviews saying that VD should get himself playing alongside his future international team mate?

[shurlock]

How long before Mr Advocaat is giving interviews saying that VD should get himself playing alongside his future international team mate?

 

Wijnaldum?

[Lets B Avenue]

Wijnaldum?

 

No, Blind.

[Smirking_Saint]

The latter - gives him Hoedt a year to acclimatise and prepare as successor to VVD, hopefully by playing alongside VVD. Better than being thrown into the deep end.

 

Also makes financial sense: the way the market is headed, a £15m player this season will be worth closer to £20m next summer. Good to do our business now as we know we'll need to buy a CB with VVD's inevitable departure.

 

Pretty much exactly how I read the situation. I firmly believe that VVD will stay, unless an offer comes in over and above our asking price. I fullu imagine the conversation has gone like this;

 

"You arent being sold this window, settle in, help Hoedt get used to the prem and we will not stand in your way in Jan/summer"

 

Id suggest that will still be subject to a reasonable bid being presented to us however.

 

All in all very happy with the Hoedt signing. I think it spells the end of Gardos, but then thats been a long time coming, you may even see Bednerak move out on loan.

[Cartman]

How long before Mr Advocaat is giving interviews saying that VD should get himself playing alongside his future international team mate?

 

I wouldn't hold my breath. Guess who Advocaat's agent is.