Van Dijk To Stay At Southampton Despite Transfer Request

[RandoEFC+]

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.

[Harry]

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...

[Inverted]

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. 

[LFCMadLad]

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 👍🏻

[RandoEFC+]

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.

[LFCMadLad]

10 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

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.

He's right what he's saying though, is he not?

Is Sig training with Swansea again by the way 

[RandoEFC+]

13 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

He's right what he's saying though, is he not?

Is Sig training with Swansea again by the way 

What he says is correct through the rose-tinted classes of a fan of the buying club. Like I say, I'll give him full credit for it if he reacts the same way when Coutinho puts in a transfer request to force his move to Barcelona or like I say, Van Dijk fancies a move to City or Chelsea in a couple of years.

Nice work trying to bring Everton into a Liverpool thread again, zzzzzzzz.

[Inverted]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

What he says is correct through the rose-tinted classes of a fan of the buying club. Like I say, I'll give him full credit for it if he reacts the same way when Coutinho puts in a transfer request to force his move to Barcelona or like I say, Van Dijk fancies a move to City or Chelsea in a couple of years.

Nice work trying to bring Everton into a Liverpool thread again, zzzzzzzz.

Mate my club literally sold Van Dijk to Southampton. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Personally I think when a player wants to force a move, the first thing they ought to do is put a transfer request in. The idea of collecting a "loyalty bonus" on exit after agitating for a move is laughable - it's hard to understand how it's the norm. I think Southampton are right not to want to lose their best players, and their fans can legitimately be annoyed we continually stall their progress by going after their stars. But at the end of the day I want us to sign him pretty badly. I think he's perfect for us and would be a massive signing, it's irritating how badly we managed to fuck it up earlier in the window.

[LFCMadLad]

3 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

What he says is correct through the rose-tinted classes of a fan of the buying club. Like I say, I'll give him full credit for it if he reacts the same way when Coutinho puts in a transfer request to force his move to Barcelona or like I say, Van Dijk fancies a move to City or Chelsea in a couple of years.

Nice work trying to bring Everton into a Liverpool thread again, zzzzzzzz.

Nobody is saying it's nice for a club when their best player wants out but it's absolute bullshit when people spout shit like "players like him are ruining the game". 

As he said above, contracts work both ways. You don't get people pissing and moaning when a club hands a player a 5 year deal but then upgrades 3 years later and either does their best to sell them or sit them on the bench, do you? 

And when Coutinho goes to Barcelona I'll be as gutted as the next red! But I assure you I won't be crying into my cornflakes, throwing stupid comments about how players like him are spoiling the game like some on here have been. 

 

[RandoEFC+]

4 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Nobody is saying it's nice for a club when their best player wants out but it's absolute bullshit when people spout shit like "players like him are ruining the game". 

As he said above, contracts work both ways. You don't get people pissing and moaning when a club hands a player a 5 year deal but then upgrades 3 years later and either does their best to sell them or sit them on the bench, do you? 

And when Coutinho goes to Barcelona I'll be as gutted as the next red! But I assure you I won't be crying into my cornflakes, throwing stupid comments about how players like him are spoiling the game like some on here have been. 

 

The point is there's a way of going about it and Van Dijk is coming across an absolute baby making a public statement about how he's been fined two week's wages and it's not fair when he's the one who's pushing for his move when it suits him and expecting the club to bend over and sell him whether they want to or not, just because he wants to.

Gonzo is spot on. If he wants to move he should hand in a transfer request at the start of the transfer window and forego his loyalty bonus. 

It's just utter bollocks the way people who supposedly support football clubs are starting to side with players in these situations, I don't care whether it's Liverpool, Everton, Sigurdsson, Van Dijk, Rooney, Neymar, I don't care. This attitude of "well even though a contract LEGALLY binds a player to the club, it doesn't matter because this is just what every player does now" and "even though tapping up is LEGALLY not allowed, everyone does it so we can do it", it bothers me, whether it bothers anyone else or not. If we're just going to fuck off the actual rules because everyone's breaking them we might as well give up.

And yes I'm aware that at this stage I'm not debating anyone and I've just gone off on a tangent about what really pisses me off.

[Honey Honey]

All players who want to leave should hand in transfer requests. Those who don't and expect the club to still sell have a cheek.

When a player hands in a transfer request he forfeits his percentage share of the transfer fee.

 

[Mel81x+]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Personally I think when a player wants to force a move, the first thing they ought to do is put a transfer request in. The idea of collecting a "loyalty bonus" on exit after agitating for a move is laughable - it's hard to understand how it's the norm. I think Southampton are right not to want to lose their best players, and their fans can legitimately be annoyed we continually stall their progress by going after their stars. But at the end of the day I want us to sign him pretty badly. I think he's perfect for us and would be a massive signing, it's irritating how badly we managed to fuck it up earlier in the window.

This is how it should be done yes but there are so many other factors (mostly contributed to greed) that supersede the right thing to be done. Had he done this in the summer he'd have lost his bonus and I am guessing he doesn't care where he goes now and has to make altruistic statements like "I want to win it all". Personally I don't mind if we sign him because this is how players are going to behave because they get away with it. I am surprised clubs don't get better lawyers to draft the agreements knowing full-well this is how players are going to behave.

The only thing that really hurts any potential suitor now is that the club will significantly raise the bar for his sale because they've been fucked over and will want something more than just getting rid of him as compensation for what's transpired.

[Dr. Gonzo]

46 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

This is how it should be done yes but there are so many other factors (mostly contributed to greed) that supersede the right thing to be done. Had he done this in the summer he'd have lost his bonus and I am guessing he doesn't care where he goes now and has to make altruistic statements like "I want to win it all". Personally I don't mind if we sign him because this is how players are going to behave because they get away with it. I am surprised clubs don't get better lawyers to draft the agreements knowing full-well this is how players are going to behave.

The only thing that really hurts any potential suitor now is that the club will significantly raise the bar for his sale because they've been fucked over and will want something more than just getting rid of him as compensation for what's transpired.

It's totally shite that players are so greedy. And I can understand why Southampton are particularly aggrieved with us, because our interest in their players led to this sort of behavior from: Lovren, Lallana, Mane, and now VVD (Clyne and Lambert were pretty straightforward deals). But look at all of the quality we've plucked from them and the way the players have left - it's totally shite for them.

Players are motivated by greed and rich clubs use that to unsettle players to fuck over less rich clubs. I'm obviously biased when it concerns Liverpool, because from my perspective I'm fine with us getting stronger and another English club getting weaker - that's obviously good for us. But for football as a whole, the "industry standard" practices of acting like a brat to force a move is a shite move from players and their grubby agents.

I think clubs need to band together if they want to change industry standard terms for their contracts that are being offered to new players. But the alternative to this extreme player power needs to be measured, it's not really ethical to stop people from switching employers to get a massive raise when it's basically what you'd expect any other reasonable person to do in any other industry. Going too far in the other direction would also be extreme. But even so, I don't think the sort of cuntish behavior is really commendable - even if we've benefitted from it in the past. Because when the shoe is on the other foot and it's Barca/Real Madrid doing it to us, we obviously don't fucking like it.

[Mel81x+]

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's totally shite that players are so greedy. And I can understand why Southampton are particularly aggrieved with us, because our interest in their players led to this sort of behavior from: Lovren, Lallana, Mane, and now VVD (Clyne and Lambert were pretty straightforward deals). But look at all of the quality we've plucked from them and the way the players have left - it's totally shite for them.

Players are motivated by greed and rich clubs use that to unsettle players to fuck over less rich clubs. I'm obviously biased when it concerns Liverpool, because from my perspective I'm fine with us getting stronger and another English club getting weaker - that's obviously good for us. But for football as a whole, the "industry standard" practices of acting like a brat to force a move is a shite move from players and their grubby agents.

I think clubs need to band together if they want to change industry standard terms for their contracts that are being offered to new players. But the alternative to this extreme player power needs to be measured, it's not really ethical to stop people from switching employers to get a massive raise when it's basically what you'd expect any other reasonable person to do in any other industry. Going too far in the other direction would also be extreme. But even so, I don't think the sort of cuntish behavior is really commendable - even if we've benefitted from it in the past. Because when the shoe is on the other foot and it's Barca/Real Madrid doing it to us, we obviously don't fucking like it.

I think its a healthy combination of the agent and the player. I don't mind a player who's greedy to win things that can sometimes translate into ambition but the way in which players go about their leaving clubs is a bit silly and in any other job if someone did that there would be repercussions so why aren't there any in this sport? Because of the money involved? I'll take a moment and laugh here. The problem may go into zones that aren't even player related because obviously they are getting advised on what to do in these situations which leads to all the mess we see in the transfer windows. 

I agree with your statement about clubs banding together to come to a consensus on how to protect themselves when transfers are initiated because its really all just getting a little silly and eventually it will get to a point where harsh action is needed and that won't be good for anyone. If we look at all thats happened this summer the proceedings will have an effects on clubs everywhere sooner rather than later. 

Having said all that and to get back on topic, I don't think we'll sign him now and if we do then we should just get it done sharpish so he can get integrated. 

[Harry]

12 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

All players who want to leave should hand in transfer requests. Those who don't and expect the club to still sell have a cheek.

When a player hands in a transfer request he forfeits his percentage share of the transfer fee.

 

I kind of agree but it is a fairly dramatic burning of the bridges with the fans to do it and if  you don't even know if there's interest and you'd like to be able to be considered for a move but it may ultimately come to nothing it is a gamble to take. 

Its also possible that the selling club would rather keep it under wraps to maximise their bargaining position when the cashed up bigger cub comes calling. 

[Dickie]

ESPN just reported Chelsea may pay 50 mil for him.... has to be a joke.

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, Saturdays Are For The Boys said:

ESPN just reported Chelsea may pay 50 mil for him.... has to be a joke.

At this point I hope not. With these continuing reports, Conte must realise how much of a liability Cahill is.  But why appoint him captain then??

[Dickie]

15 minutes ago, Cicero said:

At this point I hope not. With these continuing reports, Conte must realise how much of a liability Cahill is.  But why appoint him captain then??

In hopes he's john terry 2.0? I dunno we'll take him off your hands if you want. Wouldn't say no to Cahill in a Stoke uni.

[Cicero]

2 minutes ago, Saturdays Are For The Boys said:

In hopes he's john terry 2.0? I dunno we'll take him off your hands if you want. Wouldn't say no to Cahill in a Stoke uni.

Perfect player for you if i'm being completely honest. Tall, Strong, brilliant at set pieces and always a goal threat. 

[Dickie]

3 hours ago, Cicero said:

Perfect player for you if i'm being completely honest. Tall, Strong, brilliant at set pieces and always a goal threat. 

I completely agree to me he's another Shawcross that doesn't have the injury prone issues of him.

[LFCMadLad]

Well the Southampton chairman has totally ruled out a move for VVD, whoever bids for him stating that he will not be sold under any circumstances and that if he refuses to play then he'll rot in the stands. 

Hope we have alternatives lined up. 

[Burning Gold]

20 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Well the Southampton chairman has totally ruled out a move for VVD, whoever bids for him stating that he will not be sold under any circumstances and that if he refuses to play then he'll rot in the stands. 

Hope we have alternatives lined up. 

I'm glad it's over now because it gives us some time to identify and sign an alternative. The way it was going before it looked like it might go right down to the wire on deadline day with a few clubs after his signature.

[Stan]

Southampton say Van Dijk will be staying at the club.

 

[LFCMike]

No surprise but extremely disappointing that we're going to end the window without signing a centre back