Virgil Transfer Rumours - Summer 17

[doddisalegend]

I doubt if members of Liverpools board are either.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think the issue here is actually meeting the manager. No doubt all clubs talk to representatives of players to sound out potential signings these days but not all clubs fly players contracted to other clubs around the country to meet their manager in secret the line has be drawn somewhere.

[Secret Site Agent]

I think that it is good to take a principled stand against a side that has repeatedly turned the heads of our players since returning to the Premier League. Of course contact happens all the time but this level of personal persuasion involving the team's manager has crossed a line, which explains why the club are being described as "incandescent" in the media.

 

I agree. It's got nothing to do with us looking like crying babies, the rulesis the rules and you can't argue something that is wrong.

We go out and do it the right way, like we did with Celtic to get VVD, so the least Liverpool can do is the same.

For me, no matter what the PL do as a punishment, I would put VVD out there for £60m to City and Chelsea, £75m to Liverpool and £55m to any team outside the PL, (so he isnt playing against us). Lets see how keen Klopp is then.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I agree. It's got nothing to do with us looking like crying babies, the rulesis the rules and you can't argue something that is wrong.

We go out and do it the right way, like we did with Celtic to get VVD, so the least Liverpool can do is the same.

 

How on earth do you know how we conduct our transfer dealings? What do you think, we're the only club that don't tap players up. There was nearly a month between Koeman being appointed & Pelle signing, you don't think that maybe Koeman had a chat with him or god forbid texted him?

 

FFS, all this pony about us being apoplectic about the tapping up, is just window dressing to soften us up. He'll go to Liverpool & we'll bank the cheque. Weren't we ****ed of with Spurs over Toby, didn't stop us selling them big vic the following season though did it. Liverpool have tapped him up , but I bet we tapped him up at Celtic , and if Koeman goes to Barca in the next couple of years, he'll tap him up.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Secret Site Agent]

How on earth do you know how we conduct our transfer dealings? What do you think, we're the only club that don't tap players up. There was nearly a month between Koeman being appointed & Pelle signing, you don't think that maybe Koeman had a chat with him or god forbid texted him?

 

FFS, all this pony about us being apoplectic about the tapping up, is just window dressing to soften us up. He'll go to Liverpool & we'll bank the cheque. Weren't we ****ed of with Spurs over Toby, didn't stop us selling them big vic the following season though did it. Liverpool have tapped him up , but I bet we tapped him up at Celtic , and if Koeman goes to Barca in the next couple of years, he'll tap him up.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Logic would dictate that, if we did, and the selling club didn't like it, we would be reported. Or another team would winge because thye wanted him as well.

How difficult is it to contact the club in question and ask to speak to the player? If they say no, you just go to the press and say how much you admire the player and wish you had someone like him. There are ways to do things, ways to bend the rules to achieve what you want without breaking them.

 

As for Toby, he wasn't ours in the first place and YES, I was mightily ****ed off when spurs got him. But don't you think Vic wanted to go to Spurs, and we got a decent bit of wedge for him. That is the importatnt thing to remember, we get a big wedge for these people, which is the only consolation I get when they go, otherwise you have an underperforming player, or one sat on the bench for a year to two years then they go for free.

 

It's business, no matter how you look at it. When VVD goes, why should Liverpool have an advantage over other clubs because they have tapped him up? Why should Chelsea, City, Man U or say Inter or Real Madrid not have a chance to put their offer to him?

[Heisenberg]

What kind of club negotiates £60m transfers and 200k pw wages in BLACKPOOL!!!

 

Unless they took VVD to meet his new CB partner - Donkey (Lovren)

 

#bants

[Heisenberg]

If Southampton weren't tapping up players to join us this summer I'd be seriously worried about their competence. People should get off their high horses. Every single club is doing it, why are people getting their knickers in a twist, just because Liverpool are good at it? Moaning about it, just makes us look like ****ing babies.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Did your mate give you the inside scope on this too and now its 100% fact? Or do you actually have ANY proof?

 

Are you accusing SFC of tapping up players?

[ALWAYS_SFC]

I shudder to think of people judging all Saints fans by the tripe posted on here.

 

If there are any Scousers still reading this, we're not all like ALWAYS, Dalek, alpine, Heisenberg, Batman, pluto, 9-3, Dusic, Charlie Wayman, ART, Matthew Le God... I could go on.

 

 

I suspect they are only here to read your pearls of wisdom

[angelman]

Little snippet from the Mail....

 

Football agency Wasserman Media Group, fresh from the controversy of their former CEO Sam Rush being dismissed by Derby for gross misconduct, now have to contend with Southampton reporting Liverpool to the Premier League claiming there was an illegal approach to Dutch defender Virgil van Dijk.

 

The player was poached by WMG from Dutch agent Henk-Maarten Chin last December. WMG declined to comment.

[SKD]

Did your mate give you the inside scope on this too and now its 100% fact? Or do you actually have ANY proof?

 

Are you accusing SFC of tapping up players?

 

The article from the telegraph pretty much confirms that we do, as does every club.

 

Southampton are well aware that transfers can involve informal conversations but feel that a line may have been crossed and want the Premier League to find out whether there has been any contact between Liverpool and Van Dijk.

 

I think we are just concerned / making out we are concerned and showing a bit of fight that it appears Van Dijk has already met with Klopp and/or Liverpool.

 

Thinking back, we don't really have a very good record in recent times when making complaints.... Clattenburg and Toby.. Lets just hope this is more favorable...

[benjii]

I think the point is that it's very hard to prove that conversations had between intermediaries have been officially sanctioned or endorsed by a club. If an agent known to Liverpool happens to have a conversation with Van Dijk's agent and they happen to discuss what he may or may not be interested in then it's very hard to draw a clear line back to the management of Liverpool and say "that's tapping up".

 

It's quite another thing, however, to arrange a meeting between a player under contract and another team's manager.

[doddisalegend]

I think the point is that it's very hard to prove that conversations had between intermediaries have been officially sanctioned or endorsed by a club. If an agent known to Liverpool happens to have a conversation with Van Dijk's agent and they happen to discuss what he may or may not be interested in then it's very hard to draw a clear line back to the management of Liverpool and say "that's tapping up".

 

It's quite another thing, however, to arrange a meeting between a player under contract and another team's manager.

 

 

That's my take on it we all know agents are talking to clubs and players all the time. The difference here is actually setting up a meeting between an under contract player and another clubs officials with out permission that seems to be crossing a line.

[Whitey Grandad]

That's my take on it we all know agents are talking to clubs and players all the time. The difference here is actually setting up a meeting between an under contract player and another clubs officials with out permission that seems to be crossing a line.

 

In Blackpool wasn't it? Nobody goes there for pleasure, surely?

[Diabolus Ex Machina]

Is it just me that thinks our issue with Liverpool is less that they've talked with the player but more that they've seemingly blabbed to the press about it? Putting it out there that he wants to join Pool looks like an obvious way to deter other bidders plus the stated fee of around £50mil in these articles is significantly less than what we are apparently saying he's worth (£70mil?) and looks to me like Pool trying to set the fee without negotiating. I'm sure we're open to offers for him but it doesn't look like a fee has been agreed with the club and Liverpool are trying to force it down which understandably would annoy us!

[tajjuk]

I think it's more the comments that he's personally chatted with Klopp, they obviously recognise agents and middlemen meetings might be going on, but having one clubs manager directly chatting with another club's contracted player seems a bit too far.

 

And Liverpool were the ones blagging about that so they only have themselves to blame, they leaked that to their own press.

[benjii]

Is it just me that thinks our issue with Liverpool is less that they've talked with the player but more that they've seemingly blabbed to the press about it? Putting it out there that he wants to join Pool looks like an obvious way to deter other bidders plus the stated fee of around £50mil in these articles is significantly less than what we are apparently saying he's worth (£70mil?) and looks to me like Pool trying to set the fee without negotiating. I'm sure we're open to offers for him but it doesn't look like a fee has been agreed with the club and Liverpool are trying to force it down which understandably would annoy us!

 

Yes, that too.

[Secret Site Agent]

Did your mate give you the inside scope on this too and now its 100% fact? Or do you actually have ANY proof?

 

Are you accusing SFC of tapping up players?

 

Wow, i'm agreeing with both Glasgow AND Alpine today.

 

Yes, where is your proof? You've been called on this on 2 threads so far today.

[Jimmy_D]

Liverpool fans still thinking it's about the money... Saints being bitter that a bidding war hasn't developed and that VvD has effectively already left.

 

We want VvD here next season. We currently have one of the world's best defenders on a 5 year contract. Even the £75M top end being touted would likely leave us worse off than that.

 

It's this exact situation, where a player is under a long contract and the only way to get that player is by making them want to leave, that the tapping up rules are designed to prevent. That's the reason Saints are so ****ed off, and rightly so by the way it sounds like Liverpool have gone about this.

 

I think that we're prepared to make this a point of principle now, that short of VvD going on strike, he'll be here next season.

Edited 7 June, 2017 by Jimmy_D

[farawaysaint]

See Liverpool itk had this to say.

 

@GraemeKelly1: They can report mate, they gave us written permission to speak to him

 

Bit of foot stomping from both sides it seems.

[baggytrousers]

Is it just me that thinks our issue with Liverpool is less that they've talked with the player but more that they've seemingly blabbed to the press about it? Putting it out there that he wants to join Pool looks like an obvious way to deter other bidders plus the stated fee of around £50mil in these articles is significantly less than what we are apparently saying he's worth (£70mil?) and looks to me like Pool trying to set the fee without negotiating. I'm sure we're open to offers for him but it doesn't look like a fee has been agreed with the club and Liverpool are trying to force it down which understandably would annoy us!

 

...or alternatively we may actually want to keep our best player who signed a 6 year deal with us last summer.

[S-Clarke]

See Liverpool itk had this to say.

 

@GraemeKelly1: They can report mate, they gave us written permission to speak to him

 

Bit of foot stomping from both sides it seems.

 

Like he would know that. Unless he's their owner.

[angelman]

...or alternatively we may actually want to keep our best player who signed a 6 year deal with us last summer.

 

Its incredible isn't it that people seem not to see this as an option. Oh I can understand it from Liverpool supporters, their arrogance blinds them to this possibility.

 

And who really knows what is going on? Maybe if we weren't going to keep him, maybe we had an agreement with, say, Barcelona to buy him for £70m (favourable FX rate at the moment!!) and Liverpool blabbing is jeopardising this. etc etc. Unless you are party to all the facts and details, everything else is speculation.

[Secret Site Agent]

See Liverpool itk had this to say.

 

@GraemeKelly1: They can report mate, they gave us written permission to speak to him

 

Bit of foot stomping from both sides it seems.

 

Of Course we did.

 

I also gave Burglar Bill written permission to enter my property and reported him to the police. For some strange reason.

[SKD]

See Liverpool itk had this to say.

 

@GraemeKelly1: They can report mate, they gave us written permission to speak to him

 

Bit of foot stomping from both sides it seems.

 

If true, someone at the club (who has decided to leak this to the press) deserves to get the chop, likewise if we sell him to them. It is going to make us look pathetic when we finally sell him to Liverpool. I would have preferred us to keep our mouth shut.

 

I really fear that this is just us trying to appease fans and putting on 'we won't let him go without a fight' front. We've known that VVD wanted to and was going to leave for sometime. I find it strange that it has all come out now... unless we really are ****ed off at Liverpool?

[trousers]

See Liverpool itk had this to say.

 

@GraemeKelly1: They can report mate, they gave us written permission to speak to him

 

Bit of foot stomping from both sides it seems.

 

If true, could this be something to do with Gareth Rogers being 'let go'? Or is that 2+2=5 territory?

[doddisalegend]

If true, could this be something to do with Gareth Rogers being 'let go'? Or is that 2+2=5 territory?

 

 

If we gave written permission we'd have to be absolute idiots to make a complaint even we aren't that stupid.

[doddisalegend]

If true, someone at the club (who has decided to leak this to the press) deserves to get the chop, likewise if we sell him to them. It is going to make us look pathetic when we finally sell him to Liverpool. I would have preferred us to keep our mouth shut.

 

I really fear that this is just us trying to appease fans and putting on 'we won't let him go without a fight' front. We've known that VVD wanted to and was going to leave for sometime. I find it strange that it has all come out now... unless we really are ****ed off at Liverpool?

 

 

Him wanting to go and him leaving aren't the same thing though with 5 years on his contract we don't have to sell him... We can say no and there is **** all Liverpool or VVD can do about. Whether the club has the will to do so is another thing.

[Crab Lungs]

It's all an orchestrated drama, all the press stuff, everything. As hypo simplistically said far better than me yesterday, we do this dance every summer.

 

And still people are naive enough to believe that the club knew nothing of the Liverpool talks.

 

Reed is a habitual bullsh1tter.

 

Can we get this and the Puel situation to bed please so we can all move on. Be decisive for a change... not pontificate to the press, no w4nky promo videos, no calming corporate words whilst seated in the stadium - stop faffing and just get sh1t done and start giving our supporters something to look forward to.

[Crab Lungs]

If true, could this be something to do with Gareth Rogers being 'let go'? Or is that 2+2=5 territory?

 

Ask AR-10, he knows for a FACT what happened there. I feel he answers, I'll be more than happy to compare notes with him.

[tajjuk]

See Liverpool itk had this to say.

 

@GraemeKelly1: They can report mate, they gave us written permission to speak to him

 

Bit of foot stomping from both sides it seems.

 

I seriously doubt this, unless the stories are completely made up, we wouldn't report them if this was the case.

 

Let's be honest, most 'ITKs' are complete BS anyway.

[Strangely Brown]

It's all an orchestrated drama, all the press stuff, everything. As hypo simplistically said far better than me yesterday, we do this dance every summer.

 

And still people are naive enough to believe that the club knew nothing of the Liverpool talks.

 

Reed is a habitual bullsh1tter.

 

Can we get this and the Puel situation to bed please so we can all move on. Be decisive for a change... not pontificate to the press, no w4nky promo videos, no calming corporate words whilst seated in the stadium - stop faffing and just get sh1t done and start giving our supporters something to look forward to.

 

Totally agree, oh and can we also stop this boll*cks about "Champions League ready" as well...

[Saint Albert]

See Liverpool itk had this to say.

 

@GraemeKelly1: They can report mate, they gave us written permission to speak to him

 

Bit of foot stomping from both sides it seems.

 

That defies logic: why would Saints authorize Liverpool's contact with a player who is under a long term contract?

[Saint Albert]

How on earth do you know how we conduct our transfer dealings? What do you think, we're the only club that don't tap players up. There was nearly a month between Koeman being appointed & Pelle signing, you don't think that maybe Koeman had a chat with him or god forbid texted him?

 

FFS, all this pony about us being apoplectic about the tapping up, is just window dressing to soften us up. He'll go to Liverpool & we'll bank the cheque. Weren't we ****ed of with Spurs over Toby, didn't stop us selling them big vic the following season though did it. Liverpool have tapped him up , but I bet we tapped him up at Celtic , and if Koeman goes to Barca in the next couple of years, he'll tap him up.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Spurs and Vic are a bad example to use...he ran his contract down and only wanted to play with Poch at Spurs. The club's choices were to let Vic go on a free the following year, or hold their noses and deal with Levy. They chose the latter.

[tajjuk]

The article in the other thread made a good point, the likes of Lovren, Lallana, Clyne etc. were running down contracts, wanted to leave, wouldn't sign new ones and Liverpool stirred that up but ultimately put in good offers on those players, letting them run down their contracts with unhappy players was just throwing money away. Calling out Liverpool then for their stirring bullying tactics wouldn't have done much for the club.

 

VVD is different, he has 5 years on his contract, his peak value will be no worse next year than it is now, could be even higher, same with the year after, it only really becomes a worry when there is 2 going into 1 year left and we minimum 3 years away from that.

 

So zero need to sell or allow him to go now. Keeping him a year will cost us nothing but his wages, and I reckon he is more than professional enough that he'll just get on and play if we say no. Not one single attributable quote in the press has come from him. Liverpools bullying and tapping up has no leverage this time, the running down contract and potential loss of millions is not there, so they can go f*ck themselves frankly and it's probably why we've reported them.

 

The club can deal with an unhappy player, I think out of all our recent sales VVD is probably the least likely to sulk or strike, his value will not diminish and we hold all the cards.

 

Hence the report about pool this time not before, they bullied and tapped up because they knew a club like ours could not afford to have these players go for free. Well VVD aint going to go anywhere for free, he'll be 30 by the time his contract here ends so the only way he's getting out Southampton any time soon is with the club's blessing.

[Pass the Dutchie]

Bizarrely positive piece on VVD, trying to sell him to L'pool:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/jun/06/virgil-van-dijk-liverpool-southampton-ultimate-upgrade

[Jimmy_D]

The article in the other thread made a good point, the likes of Lovren, Lallana, Clyne etc. were running down contracts, wanted to leave, wouldn't sign new ones and Liverpool stirred that up but ultimately put in good offers on those players, letting them run down their contracts with unhappy players was just throwing money away. Calling out Liverpool then for their stirring bullying tactics wouldn't have done much for the club.

 

VVD is different, he has 5 years on his contract, his peak value will be no worse next year than it is now, could be even higher, same with the year after, it only really becomes a worry when there is 2 going into 1 year left and we minimum 3 years away from that.

 

So zero need to sell or allow him to go now. Keeping him a year will cost us nothing but his wages, and I reckon he is more than professional enough that he'll just get on and play if we say no. Not one single attributable quote in the press has come from him. Liverpools bullying and tapping up has no leverage this time, the running down contract and potential loss of millions is not there, so they can go f*ck themselves frankly and it's probably why we've reported them.

 

The club can deal with an unhappy player, I think out of all our recent sales VVD is probably the least likely to sulk or strike, his value will not diminish and we hold all the cards.

 

Hence the report about pool this time not before, they bullied and tapped up because they knew a club like ours could not afford to have these players go for free. Well VVD aint going to go anywhere for free, he'll be 30 by the time his contract here ends so the only way he's getting out Southampton any time soon is with the club's blessing.

 

It's a World Cup year too. That has two benefits for us, one that he's very very unlikely to strike or put in poor performances and put his World Cup place at risk. The other is that a good performance at the World Cup would see his value increase more.

[Saint Albert]

The article in the other thread made a good point, the likes of Lovren, Lallana, Clyne etc. were running down contracts, wanted to leave, wouldn't sign new ones and Liverpool stirred that up but ultimately put in good offers on those players, letting them run down their contracts with unhappy players was just throwing money away. Calling out Liverpool then for their stirring bullying tactics wouldn't have done much for the club.

 

VVD is different, he has 5 years on his contract, his peak value will be no worse next year than it is now, could be even higher, same with the year after, it only really becomes a worry when there is 2 going into 1 year left and we minimum 3 years away from that.

 

So zero need to sell or allow him to go now. Keeping him a year will cost us nothing but his wages, and I reckon he is more than professional enough that he'll just get on and play if we say no. Not one single attributable quote in the press has come from him. Liverpools bullying and tapping up has no leverage this time, the running down contract and potential loss of millions is not there, so they can go f*ck themselves frankly and it's probably why we've reported them.

 

The club can deal with an unhappy player, I think out of all our recent sales VVD is probably the least likely to sulk or strike, his value will not diminish and we hold all the cards.

 

Hence the report about pool this time not before, they bullied and tapped up because they knew a club like ours could not afford to have these players go for free. Well VVD aint going to go anywhere for free, he'll be 30 by the time his contract here ends so the only way he's getting out Southampton any time soon is with the club's blessing.

 

Next year is a World Cup year. Assuming Holland qualify, VVD would not want to spend too much of the 17-18 season sulking in the reserves if we ask him to honour his contract for one more year.

[VectisSaint]

Next year is a World Cup year. Assuming Holland qualify, VVD would not want to spend too much of the 17-18 season sulking in the reserves if we ask him to honour his contract for one more year.

Big assumption. Unlikely to do so, currently 4th in their group, 6 points behind France with 5 to play, 3 points against Luxembourg on Friday might help I suppose given the top 2 (France & Sweden) play each other the same night.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Why should Chelsea, City, Man U or say Inter or Real Madrid not have a chance to put their offer to him?

 

Lol, do you really believe they haven't?

 

Do you still believe in Santa?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ADutchSaint]

Big assumption. Unlikely to do so, currently 4th in their group, 6 points behind France with 5 to play, 3 points against Luxembourg on Friday might help I suppose given the top 2 (France & Sweden) play each other the same night.

 

I still like it that people assume Holland will qualify for the World Cup next year, its not gonna happen tho.

[trousers]

If we gave written permission we'd have to be absolute idiots to make a complaint even we aren't that stupid.

 

I guess what I'm angling at is *could* Rogers have perhaps given permission 'informally', without reference to his fellow board members?

 

*If* that happened, then both the Liverpool 'ITK' chap and Southampton Football Club could both be 'correct'....

 

Liverpool ITK chap: "We got written permission" (albeit in an informal email from a board member, for example)

Southampton FC: "We never gave written permission" ("we", as in, via the club's official channel)

 

I know that all sounds implausible, and is no doubt nonsense, but it's the only way I can get the pieces of the jigsaw to vaguely fit together.

[Saint Albert]

Here's a good 'un. The RAWK VVD is once again locked. The main reason? Too many abusive posts about Southamptom!

 

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=335603.2960

[tajjuk]

Apparently Liverpool are buying Bertrand as well, and James Rodriguez for over £50 million and were spending over £30 million on Salah but this got rejected.

 

So they seemingly are spending like £150 million plus according the papers.

[Micky]

Here's a good 'un. The RAWK VVD is once again locked. The main reason? Too many abusive posts about Southamptom!

 

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=335603.2960

 

Just lifted this explanation from said thread:

 

This is being locked for a while.

 

The main reason is that some of the stuff written about Southampton and their fans in the last 20 pages or so is ****ing embarrassing.

 

The attitude of some people is that the club should just bend over and give us their best player without a whimper. It's just ridiculous.

 

I'm not suggesting for a moment that they've been hard done by in recent years, as we've paid reasonable prices for each of the players signed from them. But I can completely understand the frustration of their fans that every year we swoop in and sign their best players, whether Southampton's policy is as a selling club or otherwise.

 

IF Southampton gave us, and whoever else, permission to speak to VVD, then this is all bluster and ********. But there's no proof it is yet. Similarly, the idea that Klopp and/or the club have made improper approaches to the player is also unfounded and seems to be based on media reports. But given the nature of the briefing and the sudden "reveal" of the news, I can entirely understand why, if no permission was given, they and their fans would be ****ed off.

 

It's not hard to imagine the shoe being on the other foot. We have lost players who have been publically courted by other clubs (Suarez) and may do so again in the future (Coutinho for one). They've signed him to a new long term contract, and he is a Southampton player. They're under no obligation to sell him to us however much it may upset the player or LFC. They may of course do so, but the idea that they "have to" is a joke and we'd be ****ing livid if Coutinho came out, said he wanted to play for Barce, and then Barce fans came along and said we "had to" sell him. It may be the prudent choice but it's far from an obligation.

 

This isn't a Southampton forum so we're not asking people to post glowing comments about the club, but some of the ****e has been ridiculous.

 

They ain't all bad you know...

[Whitey Grandad]

Just lifted this explanation from said thread:

 

This is being locked for a while.

 

The main reason is that some of the stuff written about Southampton and their fans in the last 20 pages or so is ****ing embarrassing.

 

The attitude of some people is that the club should just bend over and give us their best player without a whimper. It's just ridiculous.

 

I'm not suggesting for a moment that they've been hard done by in recent years, as we've paid reasonable prices for each of the players signed from them. But I can completely understand the frustration of their fans that every year we swoop in and sign their best players, whether Southampton's policy is as a selling club or otherwise.

 

IF Southampton gave us, and whoever else, permission to speak to VVD, then this is all bluster and ********. But there's no proof it is yet. Similarly, the idea that Klopp and/or the club have made improper approaches to the player is also unfounded and seems to be based on media reports. But given the nature of the briefing and the sudden "reveal" of the news, I can entirely understand why, if no permission was given, they and their fans would be ****ed off.

 

It's not hard to imagine the shoe being on the other foot. We have lost players who have been publically courted by other clubs (Suarez) and may do so again in the future (Coutinho for one). They've signed him to a new long term contract, and he is a Southampton player. They're under no obligation to sell him to us however much it may upset the player or LFC. They may of course do so, but the idea that they "have to" is a joke and we'd be ****ing livid if Coutinho came out, said he wanted to play for Barce, and then Barce fans came along and said we "had to" sell him. It may be the prudent choice but it's far from an obligation.

 

This isn't a Southampton forum so we're not asking people to post glowing comments about the club, but some of the ****e has been ridiculous.

 

They ain't all bad you know...

 

Indeed they aren't.

[VectisSaint]

I still like it that people assume Holland will qualify for the World Cup next year, its not gonna happen tho.

Usually people who have no idea about what is happening with Dutch football and can't be arsed to find out. I keep track on the Dutch football team as I used to live in the Netherlands.

[S-Clarke]

Fair post by the admin guy.

[Pamplemousse]

A question for the mods - Can we still be abusive towards Liverpool fans? Pleeeease

[pluto]

For a player to be allowed to talk to a club a feed has to be agreed and i dont see any evidence of that.

 

The agent may well be doing all the work but still the fact remains the club has to agree a fee or nothing happens.

[Golac's Cunning Stunts]

Just lifted this explanation from said thread:

 

This is being locked for a while.

 

The main reason is that some of the stuff written about Southampton and their fans in the last 20 pages or so is ****ing embarrassing.

 

The attitude of some people is that the club should just bend over and give us their best player without a whimper. It's just ridiculous.

 

I'm not suggesting for a moment that they've been hard done by in recent years, as we've paid reasonable prices for each of the players signed from them. But I can completely understand the frustration of their fans that every year we swoop in and sign their best players, whether Southampton's policy is as a selling club or otherwise.

 

IF Southampton gave us, and whoever else, permission to speak to VVD, then this is all bluster and ********. But there's no proof it is yet. Similarly, the idea that Klopp and/or the club have made improper approaches to the player is also unfounded and seems to be based on media reports. But given the nature of the briefing and the sudden "reveal" of the news, I can entirely understand why, if no permission was given, they and their fans would be ****ed off.

 

It's not hard to imagine the shoe being on the other foot. We have lost players who have been publically courted by other clubs (Suarez) and may do so again in the future (Coutinho for one). They've signed him to a new long term contract, and he is a Southampton player. They're under no obligation to sell him to us however much it may upset the player or LFC. They may of course do so, but the idea that they "have to" is a joke and we'd be ****ing livid if Coutinho came out, said he wanted to play for Barce, and then Barce fans came along and said we "had to" sell him. It may be the prudent choice but it's far from an obligation.

 

This isn't a Southampton forum so we're not asking people to post glowing comments about the club, but some of the ****e has been ridiculous.

 

They ain't all bad you know...

 

We should make transfer of this mod to Saintsweb part of any VVD deal. Definite upgrade :-)

[Saint-Fred]

For a player to be allowed to talk to a club a feed has to be agreed and i dont see any evidence of that.

 

The agent may well be doing all the work but still the fact remains the club has to agree a fee or nothing happens.

 

I am not sure that's true..there are loads of instances where a fee is agreed after the player has agreed terms. I am sure the club just need permission.

Obviously agents talk all the time about what deal they can get a player but I think it's the player/manager contact in this case but especially the blatant briefing of the press.

If you do it, keep it in house!