Jump to content
talkfootball365

Van Dijk To Stay At Southampton Despite Transfer Request


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Burning Gold said:

Thank fuck for that. I don't even care where he goes, I just can't wait for this to be over.

Yep, this. Us or Chelsea, but get this saga finished. Though, I would want him here. And yes, his behaviour has been terrible, and if some of our players behaved this way I would have hated it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor treasure, I hope he has enough of a support network around him to help him through this difficult time and I hope he has some money saved if he's being fined two weeks' wages xD. I suppose he's left it this long to hand in a request because he'll have to move back in with his Mum for a while if he moves without that loyalty bonus. Fucking pathetic.

Absolute horrible personality and the more Van Dijk's there are in the game, the more the sport and clubs will suffer at the expense of greedy agents and players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good statement. Addresses the main issue which was the refusal to integrate into training. 

Clubs will always leak shit to the media to paint a poor picture for a player wanting to leave and fans will eat it up. Easier to blame those nasty agents and players. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HK85 said:

That's a good statement. Addresses the main issue which was the refusal to integrate into training. 

Clubs will always leak shit to the media to paint a poor picture for a player wanting to leave and fans will eat it up. Easier to blame those nasty agents and players. 

This. Oh the fucking fume xD

we are as much to blame for this as anyone, the whole thing handled terribly. Klopp meeting him personally and then leaking it to the press was embarrassing, as was the public climbdown. 

It seems that all other avenues have been explored and this is the last throw of the dice by VVD. 

He doesn't come out of it looking great, he could have handled it better, but fuck me, he's hardly the devils spunk bucket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't knock a player for showing ambition, clearly he wants to challenge himself at the top level and is good enough to do so in my opinion he's been one of the best centre backs in the league for 2 years.

I don't understand all the hate he has received recently because Southampton have absolutely no ambition at all, They are happy to stand still every season and sell off all their best players without putting the money back in to the squad.

Edited by UNORTHODOX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cicero said:

Can't be and won't be us. He isn't needed and can't see Cahil being dropped for him. 

It could be. Chelsea made their interest known again only 2 days ago whilst yesterday Klopp said that we don't need another CB. Then VVD puts in a transfer request? 

Coild be a coincidence but....?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

It could be. Chelsea made their interest known again only 2 days ago whilst yesterday Klopp said that we don't need another CB. Then VVD puts in a transfer request? 

Coild be a coincidence but....?

 

Why drop Cahill after you make him captain though? 

We were linked with VVD before we got Rudiger, so maybe that's why the rumors are emerging again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

It could be. Chelsea made their interest known again only 2 days ago whilst yesterday Klopp said that we don't need another CB. Then VVD puts in a transfer request? 

Coild be a coincidence but....?

 

You'd like to think it was just Klopp trying to big up his other centre backs but we'll have to wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Why drop Cahill after you make him captain though? 

We were linked with VVD before we got Rudiger, so maybe that's why the rumors are emerging again? 

When a better player than what you have becomes available it changes things. 

It could be that VVD's agent leaked fake news about Chelsea lining up a bid to move things along?

It could be anything! I wouldn't rule out him moving to Chelsea just yet though, we are the experts at fucking up transfers xD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

You'd like to think it was just Klopp trying to big up his other centre backs but we'll have to wait and see.

It could be? I'm not sure why Klopp would feel he needed to big up his CB's a week before the season started but who knows? 

I just want someone to sign him, anyone! Sick of this whole embarrassing saga to be honest xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LFCMadLad said:

It could be? I'm not sure why Klopp would feel he needed to big up his CB's a week before the season started but who knows? 

I just want someone to sign him, anyone! Sick of this whole embarrassing saga to be honest xD

Why wouldn't he big up his CBs before the season starts? It's not like they've got a great track record of keeping goals out for us. The only CB I trust long term is Matip. Lovren is far too hit or miss. Klavan is the same, but less good. And Gomez has had what... 2 years of constant injury?

Lovren is 100% a confidence player. So I can see him trying to raise his confidence in hopes he'll have a bright start to the season.

Matt Law, a reliable Chelsea journalist, says Conte and Chelsea will be bidding for VVD. Ben Smith is saying it's very likely VVD will move based on how untenable his position is at Southampton - but they don't want to sell to us. So my guess is he goes to Chelsea, despite Cahill being the captain.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Why wouldn't he big up his CBs before the season starts? It's not like they've got a great track record of keeping goals out for us. The only CB I trust long term is Matip. Lovren is far too hit or miss. Klavan is the same, but less good. And Gomez has had what... 2 years of constant injury?

Lovren is 100% a confidence player. So I can see him trying to raise his confidence in hopes he'll have a bright start to the season.

Matt Law, a reliable Chelsea journalist, says Conte and Chelsea will be bidding for VVD. Ben Smith is saying it's very likely VVD will move based on how untenable his position is at Southampton - but they don't want to sell to us. So my guess is he goes to Chelsea, despite Cahill being the captain.

That's basically what I was saying except that I don't think Klopp saying we don't need another CB was entirely down to 'big up our CB's' but more to do with publicly conceding to losing out to VVD without losing too much face.  

On the other hand, if Chelsea were actively in discussions with Southampton... Why would VVD put in a transfer request? That doesn't make much sense seeing as Southampton would happily sell to them. It's us they don't want to sell to. 

We'll see. I've wanted him all along but it's got to the point where I don't care where he goes now as long as we stop having to hear about it every two seconds. 

Edited by LFCMadLad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon we'll throw our hat in the ring but no way he's coming to us if Chelsea, Liverpool or City are interested. Can't say I'll cry myself to sleep over it though given the mooted price tag and the way he's acted throughout this whether people want to try and whitewash his behaviour or not.

I personally think it's got way out of proportion how he has a couple of good seasons for Southampton and that makes him pretty much the most sought-after defender in Europe at the moment? Then again I suppose it makes more sense than John Stones being shite for 18 months then selling for £50m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UNORTHODOX said:

You can't knock a player for showing ambition, clearly he wants to challenge himself at the top level and is good enough to do so in my opinion he's been one of the best centre backs in the league for 2 years.

I don't understand all the hate he has received recently because Southampton have absolutely no ambition at all, They are happy to stand still every season and sell off all their best players without putting the money back in to the squad.

Why do all this for a move to Liverpool then? Seems bizarre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason it's a bullshit statement is he, like many players, doesn't seem to understand that he was the one that agreed to sign a contract for a certain amount of time. You don't get to act like a victim over having to stay the agreed upon amount of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 6666 said:

The reason it's a bullshit statement is he, like many players, doesn't seem to understand that he was the one that agreed to sign a contract for a certain amount of time. You don't get to act like a victim over having to stay the agreed upon amount of time.

Exactly. Just because footballers get away with shitting all over their contracts all the time whenever a move suits them doesn't mean we should suddenly accept them doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should sign him now. Its a  unfortunate mess but we should offer to take him off their hands for the initial high prices that we were prepared to pay. 

We played a part in creating this mess and can't really come out looking good no matter what,  but we can at least try and defuse slightly by not leaving the player high and dry. 

Vvd should not accept the captaincy if he planned to leave the club so soon. But it sounds like there has been some character assassinating going on  to pressure him to stay...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

Exactly. Just because footballers get away with shitting all over their contracts all the time whenever a move suits them doesn't mean we should suddenly accept them doing it.

Contracts in football are not in practice understood as being a binding commitment. Ofc legally a player signs a contract and they have a legal commitment to stay there.

In reality, however, players and clubs negotiate on the understanding that the primary purpose of contract renewals is to protect the club's bargaining position. The player gets higher wages in exchange for securing his value as an asset to the club. 

Plus, nobody bats an eye when a club sells a player who might like to stay. We shit on examples when player power is used to secure a move away, but we forget that the contract is also an obligation for the club to keep the player. 

We simultaneously criticise players for sitting on the bench and collecting a paycheque for nothing, as they are perfectly legally entitled to, and also for wanting a move away and not wanting to see out their contracts for the whole extent. 

Edited by Inverted
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Inverted said:

Contracts in football are not in practice understood as being a binding commitment. Ofc legally a player signs a contract and they have a legal commitment to stay there.

In reality, however, players and clubs negotiate on the understanding that the primary purpose of contract renewals is to protect the club's bargaining position. The player gets higher wages in exchange for securing his value as an asset to the club. 

Plus, nobody bats an eye when a club sells a player who might like to stay. We shit on examples when player power is used to secure a move away, but we forget that the contract is also an obligation for the club to keep the player. 

We simultaneously criticise players for sitting on the bench and collecting a pay check for nothing, as they are perfectly legally entitled to, and also for wanting a move away and not wanting to see out their contracts for the whole extent. 

Well that's absolutely bang on 👍🏻

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Inverted said:

Contracts in football are not in practice understood as being a binding commitment. Ofc legally a player signs a contract and they have a legal commitment to stay there.

In reality, however, players and clubs negotiate on the understanding that the primary purpose of contract renewals is to protect the club's bargaining position. The player gets higher wages in exchange for securing his value as an asset to the club. 

Plus, nobody bats an eye when a club sells a player who might like to stay. We shit on examples when player power is used to secure a move away, but we forget that the contract is also an obligation for the club to keep the player. 

We simultaneously criticise players for sitting on the bench and collecting a paycheque for nothing, as they are perfectly legally entitled to, and also for wanting a move away and not wanting to see out their contracts for the whole extent. 

I look forward to seeing the same philosophical analysis in two years' time when Van Dijk has two alright seasons at Anfield then Man City come sniffing again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Van Dijk To Stay At Southampton Despite Transfer Request

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

football forum
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...