SuperSAINT Posted 6 December, 2016 Posted 6 December, 2016 @StuartJamesGNM: Reliably told that Liverpool have no interest in trying to sign Virgil van Dijk from Southampton. A non-starter.
Convict Colony Posted 6 December, 2016 Posted 6 December, 2016 @Convict_Colony: I am reliably informed journalists know f*ck all and Virgil is too good for Liverpool, only the top top clubs should have him.
VectisSaint Posted 6 December, 2016 Posted 6 December, 2016 Nope, it is you with the fundamental mistake. There is no need for any club to offer more than the release clause as meeting the release clause means it is automatically accepted. Sorry, but you are also completely, fundamentally wrong. It is a minimum to trigger, not a maximum. There is no need to offer more to trigger it as you say but that doesn't make it a maximum. Try referring to any literature on the subject, if you don't believe me. Here are some examples to help you, easily found by using Google just to check I was right: https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-release-clause-in-a-professional-footballers-contract http://www.danielgeey.com/buy-out-release-clauses-in-football-the-basics/ http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/3058/in-european-football-what-exactly-is-a-release-clause If it were the maximum then offering £1 over the clause limit would not invoke the release clause. But offering under by £1 would not trigger it. Simple use of English/Maths old boy.
Batman Posted 6 December, 2016 Posted 6 December, 2016 why on earth would you offer more than the minimum required if VvDs release clause is say, £25m, why would anyone who wants him come in at £30m? who cares what the definitions are, means little to the bank balance in this (pretend) case
CB Fry Posted 6 December, 2016 Posted 6 December, 2016 Sorry, but you are also completely, fundamentally wrong. It is a minimum to trigger, not a maximum. There is no need to offer more to trigger it as you say but that doesn't make it a maximum. Try referring to any literature on the subject, if you don't believe me. Here are some examples to help you, easily found by using Google just to check I was right: https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-release-clause-in-a-professional-footballers-contract http://www.danielgeey.com/buy-out-release-clauses-in-football-the-basics/ http://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/3058/in-european-football-what-exactly-is-a-release-clause If it were the maximum then offering £1 over the clause limit would not invoke the release clause. But offering under by £1 would not trigger it. Simple use of English/Maths old boy. Read MLG's post again and tell me what's "completely, fundamentally wrong" about it. Take your time.
The Kraken Posted 6 December, 2016 Posted 6 December, 2016 Nope, it is you with the fundamental mistake. There is no need for any club to offer more than the release clause as meeting the release clause means it is automatically accepted. Liverpool and Luis Suarez suggests no, not always. Arsenal's bid triggered the release clause but Liverpool refused to accept it.
AR-10 Posted 6 December, 2016 Posted 6 December, 2016 Just supposing.... The £25M release clause does exist. But only takes effect after a certain period of time stipulated (which is what the rag(s) doesn't say). eg: "X year deal, we want X years from you, however, if a club comes in with a bid of £25M after that period you can go". That's likely the case and that's probably his contract. It's unlikely a player is going to commit to a contract of that sort of length without that type of clause in there, those types of clauses are pretty bog standard and any smart agent worth his salt would request that. Virgil signed a 6 year contract, that's a massive length of time where circumstances can change in that time. They are designed to protect the player and the club. It's common.
benjii Posted 6 December, 2016 Posted 6 December, 2016 Liverpool and Luis Suarez suggests no, not always. Arsenal's bid triggered the release clause but Liverpool refused to accept it. Because it wasn't a proper release clause. Vectis Saint is correct. There is no need for a club to offer more but the release clause is the minimum bid that can't be rejected by the club. It's quite simple. The reason why a club MIGHT bid more is because they are unaware of the terms of the player's contract. Probably unlikely in reality but that's the theoretical answer and it's why Vectis is correct.
ADutchSaint Posted 6 December, 2016 Posted 6 December, 2016 Liverpool and Luis Suarez suggests no, not always. Arsenal's bid triggered the release clause but Liverpool refused to accept it. Suarez had a unusual release clause in his contract at Liverpool that said that Liverpool had to respond and engage in any offer that matched the clause. He didn't want to run in the problems he had with his transfer to Ajax where Groningen initially refused to talk to Ajax and he had to go to court and all kinds of shenanigans. It all depends on the clause. Summer/winter window, certain teams/leagues etc, there's all kinds of nonsense in those but that one Suarez had was pretty unusual cause it wasn't really a release clause.
SuperSAINT Posted 6 December, 2016 Posted 6 December, 2016 For comparisons sake, the Telegraph delves into Toby A's release clause: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/12/06/spurs-confident-new-deal-toby-alderweireld-25m-release-clause/
CB Saint Posted 6 December, 2016 Posted 6 December, 2016 For comparisons sake, the Telegraph delves into Toby A's release clause: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/12/06/spurs-confident-new-deal-toby-alderweireld-25m-release-clause/ We should drop £25m on the table for a laugh
SuperSAINT Posted 8 December, 2016 Posted 8 December, 2016 (edited) The Times report that Chelsea are considering a move for VvD in the January transfer window. Edited 8 December, 2016 by SuperSAINT * Clarified as per Winnersaint's reply.
Winnersaint Posted 8 December, 2016 Posted 8 December, 2016 The Times report that the Blues are considering a move for VvD in the January transfer window. Everton or Chelsea?
Miltonaggro Posted 8 December, 2016 Posted 8 December, 2016 @StuartJamesGNM: Reliably told that Liverpool have no interest in trying to sign Virgil van Dijk from Southampton. A non-starter. Plus they can't afford him.
Saint Albert Posted 8 December, 2016 Posted 8 December, 2016 The Times report that Chelsea are considering a move for VvD in the January transfer window. I can't see him going in Jan, on the grounds that we rarely do major business in Jan (at least lately), and Saints would be bats**t crazy to let him go in Jan.
SuperSAINT Posted 8 December, 2016 Posted 8 December, 2016 I can't see him going in Jan, on the grounds that we rarely do major business in Jan (at least lately), and Saints would be bats**t crazy to let him go in Jan. Agree. I'd expect it to be in the summer. I wouldn't say no to throwing in a couple of the Chelsea lads into the deal. (Although Part/Ex's never happen).
ally_uk Posted 9 December, 2016 Posted 9 December, 2016 Way to good for Saints should go to a top European team.
jasoneuelllfanclub Posted 9 December, 2016 Posted 9 December, 2016 Signed up to wasserman. Same agency used by koeman Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
Dusic Posted 9 December, 2016 Posted 9 December, 2016 You only do that for one reason, like Koeman and Fonte.
Greenridge Posted 9 December, 2016 Posted 9 December, 2016 You only do that for one reason, like Koeman and Fonte. Indeed, especially as you are only 8 months into a six-year contract.
Batman Posted 9 December, 2016 Posted 9 December, 2016 He'll be gone within 6 months but hey, we will be top of the net spend league again. yay
SuperSAINT Posted 9 December, 2016 Posted 9 December, 2016 You only do that for one reason, like Koeman and Fonte. Clyne too
stknowle Posted 9 December, 2016 Posted 9 December, 2016 Signed up to wasserman. Same agency used by koeman Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk Oh dear. Gone by next summer latest. Thing is his stock has risen and ours has gone down since he signed. Things have changed a lot not least the appointment a new uninspiring manager playing negative football leading to nights like last night which are hardly likely to inspire him to ignore reported interest from huge clubs willing to double his wages. I'm struggling to identify reasons that he would want to stay.
Patrick Bateman Posted 9 December, 2016 Posted 9 December, 2016 Signed up to wasserman. Same agency used by koeman Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk Bye then. I give him until January now.
Gunnery Posted 10 December, 2016 Posted 10 December, 2016 Selling him in January would be suicide, he's a big influence on the team, if he goes it will rip RIGHT through the club. If he has to go it should be at the seasons end.....I just hope we get his replacement in BEFORE the start of next season.
CB Fry Posted 10 December, 2016 Posted 10 December, 2016 I still think we will say no in January. Six year flipping contract signed five months ago. I was realistic enough to know that might only get us to July 2017 but if we sell in January that's a clusterf uck of epic, epic proportions.
SuperSAINT Posted 10 December, 2016 Posted 10 December, 2016 Virgil's price has gone up +£10m if City come in for him based on how they've defended tonight.
shurlock Posted 10 December, 2016 Posted 10 December, 2016 Can't see him going in Jan. No chance if Fonte leaves. Would hope we can keep him beyond summer 2017 given the lengthy contract he's recently signed; but that's probably optimistic.
ally_uk Posted 11 December, 2016 Posted 11 December, 2016 Why would he stay at Saints? We are going backwards and he is carrying this team.... That is a realistic view.
Wade Garrett Posted 11 December, 2016 Posted 11 December, 2016 Can't see why he'd want to stay at the moment to be fair. That said, he did sign a 6 year deal. Can't see the club turning decent money down for him though, they'd sell their own grandmothers.
Viking Saint Posted 11 December, 2016 Posted 11 December, 2016 why on earth would you offer more than the minimum required if VvDs release clause is say, £25m, why would anyone who wants him come in at £30m? who cares what the definitions are, means little to the bank balance in this (pretend) case Because more than one interested club could trigger the release clause at which point it becomes open season
simo Posted 11 December, 2016 Posted 11 December, 2016 Because more than one interested club could trigger the release clause at which point it becomes open season But IF 25m is the release clause they only have to bid that to speak to him then he'll just choose the club with the best terms !?
DT Posted 11 December, 2016 Posted 11 December, 2016 It's just softening us up for him leaving in the summer. They'll present it as some kind of victory if we can hang on to him in January. To be honest I'm amazed it's taken this long for other clubs to notice that he's the best defender in the league. Koeman sounds a bit twitchy at the moment. Wouldn't surprise me if he's been on the Dutchphone.... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
trousers Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/14961355.Puel__van_Dijk_buyout_talk__not_true_/ "Southampton manager Claude Puel says Virgil van Dijk does not have a £25m buyout clause in his contract"
Gunnery Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 Why would he stay at Saints? We are going backwards and he is carrying this team.... That is a realistic view. I bet you said similar in December 2015...
Gunnery Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/14961355.Puel__van_Dijk_buyout_talk__not_true_/ "Southampton manager Claude Puel says Virgil van Dijk does not have a £25m buyout clause in his contract"Sounds good to me!
HKsaint Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/14961355.Puel__van_Dijk_buyout_talk__not_true_/ "Southampton manager Claude Puel says Virgil van Dijk does not have a £25m buyout clause in his contract" Did he say "Virgil van Dijk does not have a £25m buyout clause in his contract" or "Virgil van Dijk does not have a buyout clause in his contract" ?
Batman Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 Obviously, we should keep him at least another season. but we wont
Batman Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 Because more than one interested club could trigger the release clause at which point it becomes open season that does not make any sense. If £25m is a release clause, why would a club bid more to be able to offer a contract to him? Man u could bid £25m and Everton could bid £75m...both could still offer him a deal
austsaint Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 Just supposing.... The £25M release clause does exist. But only takes effect after a certain period of time stipulated (which is what the rag(s) doesn't say). eg: "X year deal, we want X years from you, however, if a club comes in with a bid of £25M after that period you can go". That's likely the case and that's probably his contract. It's unlikely a player is going to commit to a contract of that sort of length without that type of clause in there, those types of clauses are pretty bog standard and any smart agent worth his salt would request that. Virgil signed a 6 year contract, that's a massive length of time where circumstances can change in that time. They are designed to protect the player and the club. It's common. Where have you been? Went very quiet after all those ITK snippets petered to nothing.
Saint_clark Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 Did he say "Virgil van Dijk does not have a £25m buyout clause in his contract" or "Virgil van Dijk does not have a buyout clause in his contract" ? After going through the monumental effort of clicking the link and checking, I have your answer: "However, Puel was utterly definitive when asked about the existence of a buyout clause. “It’s not true,” he insisted. “After the other thing is just speculation.”
Turkish Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 Because more than one interested club could trigger the release clause at which point it becomes open season It really is amazing how many people who think they know about football can fail to understand how a release clause works.
CB Fry Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/14961355.Puel__van_Dijk_buyout_talk__not_true_/ "Southampton manager Claude Puel says Virgil van Dijk does not have a £25m buyout clause in his contract" I'd like to join the club historian and various other assorted dinlows in denouncing this as nonsense. Look, we've already all got together and decided VVD definitely has a release clause and we've already comprehensively berated Les Reed for being such a clueless dribbling moron for putting one in - I mean, how could he be so stupid, I despair of the running of the club by these idiots, I really do - so I for one am not going to let trivial media lies and spin of the manager being directly quoted unequivically saying he doesnt have one get in the way of slagging off the club for being useless, terrible cretins. Clubcall or some website or other said there is one and that, frankly, is that.
Heisenberg Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 He won't go in January - even we are not that greedy Summer is where it's at - when the fans are occupied by the exciting new kit release
ALWAYS_SFC Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 He won't go in January - even we are not that greedy Summer is where it's at - when the fans are occupied by the exciting new kit release Will you be sitting at your pc with yours on?
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2016 Posted 13 December, 2016 He'll be gone within 6 months but hey, we will be top of the net spend league again. yay Just like "Puel will be gone by Christmas." How is that working out for you?
Recommended Posts