Pamplemousse Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 Know what you mean. I actually meant city' date=' but I guess the same applies[/quote'] Oh I see. I can't see VVD turning down the chance to work with Guardiola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 Know what you mean. I actually meant city' date=' but I guess the same applies[/quote']City, Chelsea, anyone but Liverpool. Be amusing if we refuse Liverpool's bid (which we should, as it will be stupid - about £40m) but accept the same from Huddersfield. Now that would give him a choice. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 The fact he wants to go is undeniable - It's how he handles things from here on out that matters. No it isn't, where's your evidence The last few pages of this thread, Charlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 I really do not want him to play for Southampton again. He has shown total disrespect. However if we sell him now it will send out the wrong messages to the players and other clubs. But I ask one big question of the supporters on here. If you had an opportunity to double your wages, be part of a bigger audience and more riches that might follow, just for doing the same job with the same risks what would you decide? The club have a massive decision to make because £50m + is a great return on our investment. I am happy to leave it with them. I will support any decision they make on this issue. Is it much different to when Lallana left, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 Is it much different to when Lallana left, though? As long as we get a full page spread detailing what a journey we've all had, that will be fine :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delmary Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 I would be more than happy for him to spend the season in the development squad. I think it would be a massive mistake if the club were to sell him to Liverpool after their blatant tapping up. VVD himself should be disciplined and docked wages for meeting with Klopp in the first place. Put him on gardening leave. Would not want him anywhere near the development squad. The club needs to make a stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 Put him on gardening leave. Would not want him anywhere near the development squad. The club needs to make a stand. Could be a way to guarantee we win the Checkatrade trophy though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKD Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 I'll repeat what I said a couple of days back, it's probably best we sell, just not to Liverpool. Also, how the FA cannot directly link this to tapping up is beyond me. Vile club with a vile set of fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delmary Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 Absolutely. If he refuses to play, we fine him 100% of wages and give no access to training facilities. He's still contracted to us and stays and rots until we decide to let him go. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk This. For the long term good of the club we have to stand firm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGalpin Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 OK, here's a thought... Who would accept £50M plus Dejan Lovren coming back? Let's assume that Klopp has told Lovren that he doesn't feature in his plans and VVD is his replacement. No because Lovren wouldn't come back so the hypothetical point is fairly pointless. If it was about swaps, I would prefer straight cash to buy who we wanted rather than who Liverpool want to get rid of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliemiller Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 NOT ONE BID FOR HIM !!!! So why is he throwing a hissy fit and wanting to leave ? Because Liverpool and Klopp flew him to blackpool and sold him there wonderful we will win everything next year vision of there sad deluded club , which is in complete breach of the tapping up rules . So there you have it with no bids its just the ****** he has been fed illegally that has caused this issue , someone told me Saints even have a tape of the meeting in Blackpool . Sorry the PL needs to throw the book at Liverpool over this , it wrong on so many levels ........ PAY THE ASKING PRICE LIVERPOOL OR TELL VVD YOU DONT WANT HIM IN THE PRESS FOR EVERYONE TO SEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 I'll repeat what I said a couple of days back, it's probably best we sell, just not to Liverpool. Also, how the FA cannot directly link this to tapping up is beyond me. Vile club with a vile set of fans. At a guess, I imagine we agreed not to pursue the complaint based on the Scousers apology and withdrawal of interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 Is it much different to when Lallana left, though? No different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehouseboys Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 OFFER THE ASKING PRICE LIVERPOOL OR TELL VVD YOU DONT WANT HIM IN THE PRESS FOR EVERYONE TO SEE Just corrected that, then we can still tell them to just fook off. Then sell him to Chelsea for £5m less for the chuckles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
way down south Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 could it be that we sell him to a club outside the pl albeit at a lower price? 40-50mil plus maybe addons without strengthening and satisfying the already huge egos in the pl seems a better outcome than getting 60 mil plus addons then watching the dippers or other entitled ***** fans creaming themselves about themselves, also playing against him next season several times isnt ideal not to mention we'll seem like spineless c××nts if we do sell to the dippers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchards Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 (edited) He's a turd. It's been common knowledge for months that went and met another clubs manager whilst we're paying for his rehab... it's only now he's getting both barrels from fans. Irrespective, he's a bigger pr1ck than I thought: 6 year bumper deal, captaincy injury and rehab, backstabbing Saints during that period then refusing to play because he doesn't get his way.... AND a gutless bottlejob when it comes to handing in a transfer request and foregoing a "loyalty" bonus. A proper c()nts trick. This situation is now bigger than both he club and Virgil, like someone else mentioned above: standing firm and if necessary, letting his career wilt away for five years is a far better and robust decision than caving in and taking the money from a bunch of bin-dipping, self-pitying sh1t****s. Nicely put and it saves me writing my thoughts. Just a thought, If Liverpool have not made an offer what right has VVD got to demand a move. ****ing *****. Edited 21 July, 2017 by Pilchards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 It's telling that nobody has been seriously linked since Liverpool "ended their interest" . This suggests one of two things. The football world think he's not for sale & SFC will be firm and consistent on that, or the football world think Liverpool is a done deal. I know which one I believe. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pluto Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 At this moment in time the fact is we dont need the money from his sale and so he can sit on his arse. The club seem to have made it crystal clear that he will not be sold and especially to Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 £70 million to anyone. £150 million to those self pitying, minute silencing spunktrumpets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 He has a contract. We have received zero offers. Sort your ****ing head out Virgil or you'll be on the side lines for a long time. If Liverpool want him they know what they need to do - ask to talk to the player (which would go against the public statement of withdrawing all interest) then pay us £75m +. Virgil gets what he wants the ****. LFC get a transfer sanction and we get £75m +. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 I really do not want him to play for Southampton again. He has shown total disrespect. However if we sell him now it will send out the wrong messages to the players and other clubs. But I ask one big question of the supporters on here. If you had an opportunity to double your wages, be part of a bigger audience and more riches that might follow, just for doing the same job with the same risks what would you decide? The club have a massive decision to make because £50m + is a great return on our investment. I am happy to leave it with them. I will support any decision they make on this issue. I feel the same about VVD - I just don't want him sold to Liverpool under any circumstances. He needs to ask for a transfer if he wants to go and start behaving like an adult. This is just as bad as Lallana and Lovren although in the former's case the rumour of striking was never substantiated and we got a whopping fee for the time for both players. If he goes to Chelsea I don't mind, Arsenal if they pay a decent fee or preferably Juve. I wouldn't blame Les for that. The player, agent and Klopp are a disgrace for that meeting in Blackpool - so blatant and lacking in any respect by all of them and an appropriately seedy venue for seedy people. Then Liverpool wonder why they are so loathed outside of their little bit of the North West. The Mancs do have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appy Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 £70 million to anyone. £150 million to those self pitying, minute silencing spunktrumpets. This again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_D Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 It's utterly ridiculous that a player with half a decade left on his contract should expect to leave, or that any club should expect to be able to get him, if the club doesn't want to sell. Has that EVER happened with ANY player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 You have to laugh, really. Who's going to be the new Captain? Butterfingers gets my vote. Or maybe yoshida? Doubt he'll be going anywhere soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 Nicely put and it saves me writing my thoughts. Judt a thought, If Liverpool have not made an offer what right has VVD got to demand a move. ****ing *****.It's a bizarre situation. He wants to leave, so it can only be a cry for help. "Please someone come and get me and pay me a massive salary' The only club he knows want him is Liverpool, but he only knows that because of illegal approaches. If Liverpool renew interest on the basis that they've heard he wants a move, that's an interesting can of worms, because they avoided getting into trouble by withdrawing interest. Watch the Scouse wriggling now to try to maintain this is now a new situation, and nothing to do with illegal approaches. Saints MUST reaffirm that their complaint was only withdrawn because Liverpool withdrew interest, and if they renege on that, reopen the issue. And, of course, refuse to do business with them. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 They are cumming in their pants over in rawk. Hypothetical Question: if we came to an agreement with say Manc to sell him to them and he refuses, can he be forced to go to them? No, and that's the rub. If it's the case that he'll only go to Liverpool his value is potentially reduced. They may be only willing to pay say 40 mil, but someone else 70 mil. What do we do then? Give in to player power or keep a lad who refuses to play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBizzier69 Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 One greedy b***ard, there's only one greedy b***ard. I can hear it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_D Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 No, and that's the rub. If it's the case that he'll only go to Liverpool his value is potentially reduced. They may be only willing to pay say 40 mil, but someone else 70 mil. What do we do then? Give in to player power or keep a lad who refuses to play? We can only accept offers from other clubs though, denying him the opportunity of joining Liverpool, and only giving him the choice of staying here or joining a different club other than Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 I'll repeat what I said a couple of days back, it's probably best we sell, just not to Liverpool. Also, how the FA cannot directly link this to tapping up is beyond me. Vile club with a vile set of fans. I don't think the FA are involved its the PL who were asked to look at the tapping up and they weren't interested in investigating one of the big draw TV teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 NOT ONE BID FOR HIM !!!! So why is he throwing a hissy fit and wanting to leave ? Because Liverpool and Klopp flew him to blackpool and sold him there wonderful we will win everything next year vision of there sad deluded club , which is in complete breach of the tapping up rules . So there you have it with no bids its just the ****** he has been fed illegally that has caused this issue , someone told me Saints even have a tape of the meeting in Blackpool . Sorry the PL needs to throw the book at Liverpool over this , it wrong on so many levels ........ PAY THE ASKING PRICE LIVERPOOL OR TELL VVD YOU DONT WANT HIM IN THE PRESS FOR EVERYONE TO SEE Quite - can imagine the video appearing on the back page of the Telegraph as well. Maybe even the tabloids. If he wants to go, ask for a transfer. Then we'll see whether his agent is all mouth and no trousers (no pun intended mate!) where clubs holding a serious interest other than LFC are concerned. Personally, I think LFC were trying to back SFC into a corner and thought our sales had to continue. They don't. If you want our player, on a long contract which he and his agent signed and he was happy to draw on when injured, pay the valuation and stop the sob stories and law-breaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Stunt Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 Something I find mildly annoying is that the club don't seem to take control of the media situation... Even now you have to listen to the managers thoughts on he situation via audioboo rather than the club website. I understand the club not wanting to respond to every red top headline, but when you finally have a manager you can bother to listen to, they ask the same inane questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 We can only accept offers from other clubs though, denying him the opportunity of joining Liverpool, and only giving him the choice of staying here or joining a different club other than Liverpool. If we accept an offer he can refuse to talk to the other club. In that situation he hides behind his contract. The tail is wagging the dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBizzier69 Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 No, and that's the rub. If it's the case that he'll only go to Liverpool his value is potentially reduced. They may be only willing to pay say 40 mil, but someone else 70 mil. What do we do then? Give in to player power or keep a lad who refuses to play? You keep him without a doubt. It'll be far more damaging to him than us in the long run. We simply can't cave in to these players who don't want to honour their contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_D Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 If we accept an offer he can refuse to talk to the other club. In that situation he hides behind his contract. The tail is wagging the dog. In which case he's choosing to stay then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordic Saint Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 No, and that's the rub. If it's the case that he'll only go to Liverpool his value is potentially reduced. They may be only willing to pay say 40 mil, but someone else 70 mil. What do we do then? Give in to player power or keep a lad who refuses to play? It's a scenario van Dijk, his agent an Liverpool could have almost dreamt up beween them, reducing the transfer fee by 30 million and using half of that to pay his wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 £70 million to anyone. £150 million to those self pitying, minute silencing spunktrumpets. What the minutes silence for the 96 football fans that died at a match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 No, and that's the rub. If it's the case that he'll only go to Liverpool his value is potentially reduced. They may be only willing to pay say 40 mil, but someone else 70 mil. What do we do then? Give in to player power or keep a lad who refuses to play?That's simple. Giving in and accepting £40m from Liverpool would alienate the fanbase in a devastating way. If the club were worried that the fans had fallen out with Puel, they'd better realise that selling VVD to Liverpool would provoke a sh!tstorm that would make Puelgate fade into insignificance. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 No, and that's the rub. If it's the case that he'll only go to Liverpool his value is potentially reduced. They may be only willing to pay say 40 mil, but someone else 70 mil. What do we do then? Give in to player power or keep a lad who refuses to play? He'll go to Chelsea or anywhere else (Gunners, City, Juventus) if the offer is right for the clubs and player. Forget all this nonsense from Merseyside. If they were that mercenary in Blackpool, their heads will turn with more £££ on offer at Chelsea and VVD won't even have to move house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 You keep him without a doubt. It'll be far more damaging to him than us in the long run. We simply can't cave in to these players who don't want to honour their contracts. I agree but it's unlikely the club will have an ongoing dispute with a player locked into a 5 year contract. Realistically I think we'd have to cash in. Or do a Mutu on him and sue him for every bean for breach of contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 I agree but it's unlikely the club will have an ongoing dispute with a player locked into a 5 year contract. Realistically I think we'd have to cash in. Or do a Mutu on him and sue him for every bean for breach of contract. Wasn't Mutu sacked by Chelsea for drug use ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADutchSaint Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 You keep him without a doubt. It'll be far more damaging to him than us in the long run. We simply can't cave in to these players who don't want to honour their contracts. So we need to keep paying him his wage while letting him rot away to to make a point? That would be 100m+ absolute waste of money on a player who doesn't want to be here. If the club wants to make a point then they sell him tomorrow to who ever wants him, players should be proud and happy to play to the club, if not they can **** off. No player is bigger then the club. Sell him, sell him now. Who gives a **** where he goes to, out of sight out of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 That's simple. Giving in and accepting £40m from Liverpool would alienate the fanbase in a devastating way. If the club were worried that the fans had fallen out with Puel, they'd better realise that selling VVD to Liverpool would provoke a sh!tstorm that would make Puelgate fade into insignificance. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk I've said Chelsea all along and I'm sticking to it. They've got much better players we could be loaned as part of as deal, none of Liverpool's squad beyond the starters like Mane and co would get near our first XI. VVD won't have to move from new home in Winchester area so keeps the peace (allegedly) at home. Even if we got a few million less I would rather he went there than Liverpool. The new TV deal means we can hold out for our self-respect rather more (I hope). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamplemousse Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 He'll go to Chelsea or anywhere else (Gunners, City, Juventus) if the offer is right for the clubs and player. Forget all this nonsense from Merseyside. If they were that mercenary in Blackpool, their heads will turn with more £££ on offer at Chelsea and VVD won't even have to move house. Exactly. We know VVD is not a man of his word. If another club enters the fray and really wants him, and can offer more money, then he'll choose them instead. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 So we need to keep paying him his wage while letting him rot away to to make a point? That would be 100m+ absolute waste of money on a player who doesn't want to be here. If the club wants to make a point then they sell him tomorrow to who ever wants him, players should be proud and happy to play to the club, if not they can **** off. No player is bigger then the club. Sell him, sell him now. Who gives a **** where he goes to, out of sight out of mind. Can see what you are saying but after the Lallana and Lovren debacles Liverpool have to be taught a lesson here. SFC have enough financial clout to do it as well. I can live with it if he goes elsewhere but Liverpool? I agree with Shroppie, that's Les Reed finished basically and I don't think Les will give in this time. We don't need to sell this summer. Good start by MP btw. VVD's agent might learn something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 Agreed. ANYONE but Liverpool but you just know it will be them. Further predictions since I'm on fire today: We will get 65-70m with 20%(?) going to Celtic, another 10-15m goes to agents + VVD ect and will will buy 2 almost unknown players for around the 12-16m mark. I will post about VVDs flaws and bump the defectors watch thread everytime VVD misplaces a pass or Liverpool conceed a goal. Next summer we will sell Romeu and Bertrand and repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 £70 million to anyone. £150 million to those self pitying, minute silencing spunktrumpets. nope no amount of money just don't sell to Liverpool full stop (ever) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordic Saint Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 That's simple. Giving in and accepting £40m from Liverpool would alienate the fanbase in a devastating way. If the club were worried that the fans had fallen out with Puel, they'd better realise that selling VVD to Liverpool would provoke a sh!tstorm that would make Puelgate fade into insignificance. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk Even if we sold him for only £40m, the club woul 'leak' a much higher sum to the fans, as the accounts show they have consistently done in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertyell Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 Wasn't Mutu sacked by Chelsea for drug use ? Yes, and then successfully sued for breach of contract. Given that Virgil has breached contract at least twice, by having unauthorised meetings with Liverpool and now refusing to play, I think Saints would be in an incredibly strong position, should they persue the nuclear option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamplemousse Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 I think we need to get the Northam to start chanting "Free Philippe Coutinho" to the song of Free Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 21 July, 2017 Share Posted 21 July, 2017 Wasn't Mutu sacked by Chelsea for drug use ? Yes and then sued for breach of contract as a result of the transfer fee Chelsea lost as a result of his conduct. The award was £14.6million. Don't have to sack a player to have a claim for breach of contract - especially when a player is refusing to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts