Jump to content

Virgil Transfer Rumours - Summer 17

wild-saint

By wild-saint,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Huffton

Huffton

Posted
Posted
Those Nichol quotes are incredible. How dare Southampton complain about Liverpool and how dare they ask so much money when Liverpool need him so badly. Unbelievable

 

A lot of footballers are thick but Steve Nichol wear the dunce cap. Years ago when he was having some building work done on his house the builders (probably Everton fans) asked him to pop down B+Q for a new spirit level, as his one had a bubble in it. He went.:lol:

This is a true story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Albert

Saint Albert

Posted
Posted
A lot of footballers are thick but Steve Nichol wear the dunce cap. Years ago when he was having some building work done on his house the builders (probably Everton fans) asked him to pop down B+Q for a new spirit level, as his one had a bubble in it. He went.:lol:

This is a true story.

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
I look forward to this being done . Its boring . We will sell and for much less than the quoted figures .

 

Reed talks us up as a selling club . He will sell .

 

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

 

You're fcking boring pal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Donatello

Donatello

Posted
Posted
A lot of footballers are thick but Steve Nichol wear the dunce cap. Years ago when he was having some building work done on his house the builders (probably Everton fans) asked him to pop down B+Q for a new spirit level, as his one had a bubble in it. He went.:lol:

This is a true story.

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrfahaji

mrfahaji

Posted
Posted
A lot of footballers are thick but Steve Nichol wear the dunce cap. Years ago when he was having some building work done on his house the builders (probably Everton fans) asked him to pop down B+Q for a new spirit level, as his one had a bubble in it. He went.:lol:

This is a true story.

 

And yet he's still had a career (albeit in the US) in management and as a pundit. Two jobs where you'd think having a brain would be a prerequisite, or at least a significant advantage, for the job. Not in football though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted

Interestingly in that Van Dijk article talking about Oxlade-Chamberlain only having one year left on his contract,we should be all over that, tell him he needs first team football and he won't get that at Liverpool when they have Lallana, Mane, Salah, Coutinho, Firminho etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
Interestingly in that Van Dijk article talking about Oxlade-Chamberlain only having one year left on his contract,we should be all over that, tell him he needs first team football and he won't get that at Liverpool when they have Lallana, Mane, Salah, Coutinho, Firminho etc.

 

He'll still be £25m or so though, plus he would want wages that far exceed our wage cap. Don't think we're able to spend that sort of level until we sell - just a hunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted
He'll still be £25m or so though, plus he would want wages that far exceed our wage cap. Don't think we're able to spend that sort of level until we sell - just a hunch.

 

£25 million seems optimistic if, as it looks that Wenger is having a clear out and doesn't want him. Plus I'd presume (hope) we have a sell on clause in there that would make him effectively cheaper for us.

 

He is also supposedly on £65,000 a week, so I'd presume we'd be able to offer that if not more like £75k.

 

I don't think he is one of these players that would expecting nor commanding £150k a week. He needs to get his career on track and get regular game time. I see him closer, though more high profile, to the likes of Bertrand and Romeu coming here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Albert

Saint Albert

Posted
Posted

Chelsea are about to spend £61 million on the LB Sandro according to multiple reports in the press today. It puts the club's valuation of VVD into perspective, not to mention the prices floating around in the media concerning Bertrand (£25 mill) and (Cedric £15 mill)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Chelsea are about to spend £61 million on the LB Sandro according to multiple reports in the press today. It puts the club's valuation of VVD into perspective, not to mention the prices floating around in the media concerning Bertrand (£25 mill) and (Cedric £15 mill)

 

Problem is you usually don't get those fees until a player plays in the CL and shows he can compete at the highest level, regardless how much potential he may have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Albert

Saint Albert

Posted
Posted

I think that £61 million for Sandro sets the top level price for fullbacks in what may well prove to be a highly inflationary market. I'm sure that Daniel "Mr. Burns" Levy will be observing it with interest. I'm not going to suggest that RB and Cedric are at the top level of the scale, but I also do not think they are as far down as the presently-reported valuations would indicate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
I seem to remember Ryan Bertrand played in Chelsea's final win over Bayern didn't he?

 

He was handed his CL debut in the final, though it was largely by default due to injuries and suspensions. Doesn't change my point that if you want to command the highest fees, you have to prove yourself at the highest level, typically CL football.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted

Bit cheeky of Juventus if they think they can sell a full back for £61 million then buy ours at £15 million.

 

If sandro is £60 million and VVD is around £60 million then Cedric has to be at least £25 million in the current market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
He was handed his CL debut in the final, though it was largely by default due to injuries and suspensions. Doesn't change my point that if you want to command the highest fees, you have to prove yourself at the highest level, typically CL football.

 

Where did I say it did? I wasn't replying to you.

 

Just puts him in the same realms as the likes of Djimi Traore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cartman

Cartman

Posted
Posted
VVD bid will be in tomorrow.

 

You scouse ****s really are thick as **** aren't you? You aren't facing any action only because we wouldn't benefit from it. Instead we are holding the threat over your perms to keep you away from our players. We are blackmailing you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bjb7223

bjb7223

Posted
Posted
You scouse ****s really are thick as **** aren't you? You aren't facing any action only because we wouldn't benefit from it. Instead we are holding the threat over your perms to keep you away from our players. We are blackmailing you.

 

Watch when he is back from holiday. His agent already has instructed him to put in a transfer request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cartman

Cartman

Posted
Posted
Watch when he is back from holiday. His agent already has instructed him to put in a transfer request.

 

As if a hubcap thieving meth injecting lowlife would know that. And so what if he does, it's not like we haven't rejected transfer requests in the past, means **** all. And if we do sell him it will be to Chelsea, not you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Albert

Saint Albert

Posted
Posted

 

I'm trying to come to an understanding of exactly what is happening here. I came up with the following alternatives:

 

a) Liverpool did nothing wrong in the league's eyes; or

b) Liverpool breached the illegal approach rules but their abject and public apology and their public withdrawal of interest in VVD were deemed punishment enough by the league; or

c) Southampton have more evidence that they are withholding, because they are pleased with the apology and withdrawal of interest in VVD, but they will use this evidence if Liverpool welch on their public statement and pursue VVD again; or

d) Liverpool breached the illegal approach rules but the league don't want to do anything to upset one of its big teams, because the league are a bunch of ______ (insert pejorative here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jimmy_D

Jimmy_D

Posted
Posted (edited)
I'm trying to come to an understanding of exactly what is happening here. I came up with the following alternatives:

 

a) Liverpool did nothing wrong in the league's eyes; or

b) Liverpool breached the illegal approach rules but their abject and public apology and their public withdrawal of interest in VVD were deemed punishment enough by the league; or

c) Southampton have more evidence that they are withholding, because they are pleased with the apology and withdrawal of interest in VVD, but they will use this evidence if Liverpool welch on their public statement and pursue VVD again; or

d) Liverpool breached the illegal approach rules but the league don't want to do anything to upset one of its big teams, because the league are a bunch of ______ (insert pejorative here).

 

If I was betting on it, I'd guess a combination of b and d, the Premier League stand to benefit if their team isn't hamstrung in the Champions League. I also reckon that there's an understanding that Liverpool actually back off and don't pursue VvD though.

Edited by Jimmy_D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)

If he wants to go to Liverpool, he'll end up at Liverpool. It may cost them a few quid more,but if anyone thinks we're going to hold out when they're talking about £60+ million, they're deluded. I guess it boils down to why he prefers Liverpool to Chelsea. I'm sure if he's not that bothered which one he goes to, he may end up at Chelsea. But if he's set on Liverpool, he'll end up there.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted

To me its clear the charge is "laying on file", which means that if Liverpool make any further efforts, we will trigger the PL to take up the issue again and present whatever extra evidence we have. It seems all 3 parties understand, if not accept, that this is the way forward.

 

This also means, IMO, for him to leave for Liverpool, they will have to pay the 70m we are demanding. Since this expectation has gone public, our board are going to look extremely stupid if we accept less.

 

The very public statements by Nicol and Aldridge can be interpreted as their own personal opinion and they are being simply mouthy, or it is a back door effort being orchestrated by LFC. Its difficult to prove which, which means nothing will happen over this.

 

This sort of leaves us in control, IMO, but looking a little over our shoulder for a VVD strop which has or has not been encouraged / aggravated by the press breifings from the likes of Nicol and Aldridge.

 

I would rather Chelsea just come in and offer the 70m, tbh. I dont want him to go to LFC,and the situation I have outlined above could lead to him going at any minute, including 1 day before the transfer window closes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benali-shorts

benali-shorts

Posted
Posted

Much the same from the Times, although this claims we have told Liverpool we will not sell to them at any price. We'll see.

 

The Times:

Liverpool will not face any action from the Premier League for allegedly tapping up Virgil van Dijk. Southampton made an official complaint to the Premier League this month after being angered by widespread reports that the Dutchman wanted to move to Anfield to work with Jürgen Klopp. After a preliminary investigation, however, the League has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to start disciplinary proceedings. Premier League lawyers have spoken to both clubs and are satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed. Southampton have not withdrawn their complaint, but accepted an apology from Liverpool three weeks ago and will not push for them to be charged. The Premier League will not take any action unless new information becomes available, which, given that Southampton submitted all the evidence at their disposal with their initial complaint, appears unlikely. Premier League lawyers have spoken to both clubs and are satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed.

 

Liverpool will be relieved to escape without being charged, particularly as they were sanctioned this year by the Premier League for tapping up an academy player at Stoke City and offering his family inducements. In that instance the club were fined £100,000 and banned from signing academy players for 12 months, and although a fine was the most likely outcome if they had been found guilty in the Van Dijk case, the Premier League has the power to impose transfer bans on repeat offenders.

 

Liverpool have not denied making an illegal approach to Van Dijk, but their punishment will be restricted to the humiliation of being forced to make a very public climbdown and the probable loss of a key transfer target. Klopp still wants to sign Van Dijk, but has been told by his employers that another move for the 25-year-old is unrealistic and so is prioritising other targets such as RB Leipzig’s Naby Keita. During the talks between the two clubs before the apology, Southampton made it clear that they would not sell Van Dijk to Liverpool at any price. In addition, Fenway Sports Group, Liverpool’s owner, values its reputation for probity and does not want to be seen to be going back on its word.

 

Southampton are hopeful that Van Dijk will stay, but Chelsea and Manchester City are also interested in him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
Much the same from the Times, although this claims we have told Liverpool we will not sell to them at any price. We'll see.

 

The Times:

Liverpool will not face any action from the Premier League for allegedly tapping up Virgil van Dijk. Southampton made an official complaint to the Premier League this month after being angered by widespread reports that the Dutchman wanted to move to Anfield to work with Jürgen Klopp. After a preliminary investigation, however, the League has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to start disciplinary proceedings. Premier League lawyers have spoken to both clubs and are satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed. Southampton have not withdrawn their complaint, but accepted an apology from Liverpool three weeks ago and will not push for them to be charged. The Premier League will not take any action unless new information becomes available, which, given that Southampton submitted all the evidence at their disposal with their initial complaint, appears unlikely. Premier League lawyers have spoken to both clubs and are satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed.

 

Liverpool will be relieved to escape without being charged, particularly as they were sanctioned this year by the Premier League for tapping up an academy player at Stoke City and offering his family inducements. In that instance the club were fined £100,000 and banned from signing academy players for 12 months, and although a fine was the most likely outcome if they had been found guilty in the Van Dijk case, the Premier League has the power to impose transfer bans on repeat offenders.

 

Liverpool have not denied making an illegal approach to Van Dijk, but their punishment will be restricted to the humiliation of being forced to make a very public climbdown and the probable loss of a key transfer target. Klopp still wants to sign Van Dijk, but has been told by his employers that another move for the 25-year-old is unrealistic and so is prioritising other targets such as RB Leipzig’s Naby Keita. During the talks between the two clubs before the apology, Southampton made it clear that they would not sell Van Dijk to Liverpool at any price. In addition, Fenway Sports Group, Liverpool’s owner, values its reputation for probity and does not want to be seen to be going back on its word.

 

Southampton are hopeful that Van Dijk will stay, but Chelsea and Manchester City are also interested in him.

 

Why did Liverpool issue such a grovelling, public apology if there is no strong case against them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Why did Liverpool issue such a grovelling, public apology if there is no strong case against them?

Was just about to post the same. One assumes that Liverpool will now retract their apology given it turns out they've done nothing wrong...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALWAYS_SFC

ALWAYS_SFC

Posted
Posted
To me its clear the charge is "laying on file", which means that if Liverpool make any further efforts, we will trigger the PL to take up the issue again and present whatever extra evidence we have. It seems all 3 parties understand, if not accept, that this is the way forward.

 

This also means, IMO, for him to leave for Liverpool, they will have to pay the 70m we are demanding. Since this expectation has gone public, our board are going to look extremely stupid if we accept less.

 

The very public statements by Nicol and Aldridge can be interpreted as their own personal opinion and they are being simply mouthy, or it is a back door effort being orchestrated by LFC. Its difficult to prove which, which means nothing will happen over this.

 

This sort of leaves us in control, IMO, but looking a little over our shoulder for a VVD strop which has or has not been encouraged / aggravated by the press breifings from the likes of Nicol and Aldridge.

 

I would rather Chelsea just come in and offer the 70m, tbh. I dont want him to go to LFC,and the situation I have outlined above could lead to him going at any minute, including 1 day before the transfer window closes.

 

I agree with that but do not expect him to go anywhere this season

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALWAYS_SFC

ALWAYS_SFC

Posted
Posted
The price for VVD is £75m, if someone matches it he will go.

 

Hope we have decent a decent replacement lined up if someone does, the worry is that a late bid will arrive

and we will have little time to sort replacement.

 

IMO he should stay one more year as price will likely be just as much if not more next summer, coupled with the fact

i think he should stay as he owes us some loyalty for the 6 year deal and the rehab...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted
Hope we have decent a decent replacement lined up if someone does, the worry is that a late bid will arrive

and we will have little time to sort replacement.

 

 

My main concern too. He wil leave somewhen, we all know that. It needs to be at a timing of our choosing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...