The Virgil Van Dijk Stays at Southampton Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
I cannot see Virgil playing for us again....too much water under the bridge. He would need to be very grown up...talk sensibly to the board...come out in public and say he will do the best for the club etc etc. Ain't never going to happen. I would like the club to stay firm and make him miss out for a season or half a season at the minimum (a nice bit of suffering), but pragmatically I accept they may sell him to anyone but Liverpool. Liverpool is definitely a no no for Les and the board to retain credibility.

If we do stay firm and he doesn't play, I wouldn't be surprised if his agent doesn't go to court about it. A challenge to football contracts has been on the cards in recent years. Players want it to be all in their favour and not the clubs...the problem with that is that it will be fine for the big boys, but crap for players lower down the scale as clubs will be less likely to offer decent contracts.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
I cannot see Virgil playing for us again....too much water under the bridge. He would need to be very grown up...talk sensibly to the board...come out in public and say he will do the best for the club etc etc. Ain't never going to happen. I would like the club to stay firm and make him miss out for a season or half a season at the minimum (a nice bit of suffering), but pragmatically I accept they may sell him to anyone but Liverpool. Liverpool is definitely a no no for Les and the board to retain credibility.

If we do stay firm and he doesn't play, I wouldn't be surprised if his agent doesn't go to court about it. A challenge to football contracts has been on the cards in recent years. Players want it to be all in their favour and not the clubs...the problem with that is that it will be fine for the big boys, but crap for players lower down the scale as clubs will be less likely to offer decent contracts.
Click to expand...

Not sure that his agent has any grounds to go to court to be honest. If anything I would have thought it was Saints that should take the agent to court for arranging a meeting with Scousehampton........?
 
  • Like
Reactions: manxsaint and TheSecondStain
I assume Fran is talking about the old players not being able to break contracts argument. If any of us signed a six-year contract with an employer there would be an agreed notice period and we would be able to resign and take up (or seek) alternative employment.
 
Archers Road said:
[QUOTE="Beddytare, post: 10892089, member: 1000684"]I have to admit it does look like saints are going to rid themselves of VVD.............I am a little surprised that more hasn't been said or done about his agents. Surely arranging meetings with clubs with out the clubs permission is against someones rules IE football league, Premier League or even Fifa? Surely agents have got to be rained in?
Personally I think Saints should fine him his wages from the day he met with scousehampton, after all it would be in breach of contract.
Click to expand...

Does it? All I see so far is unsubstantiated press speculation.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily this window granted but I cannot see Saints playing him. Hopefully I'm wrong.......
 
Schad said:
There's always a way back. Puncheon got in a spat with Adkins, spent a year and a half being shuttled off on loan, publicly criticized Cortese...and then apologized, was welcomed back, and played a significant role in our first PL season.
Click to expand...

Ditto Schneiderlin. (though he never fell out with anyone but still had a public tantrum)
 
Gregm88 said:
Unless the clause is actually not legal in some way. I can't say I have ever heard such a clause come up before

But it would make sense since it seemed like we intended to give him the captaincy the whole time
Click to expand...
For me it sounds like a perfectly legitimate and intelligent clause. If you are a club that is willing to take a risk on a player in July and be proved right, you don't want him agitating for a move in January once you have given him a platform to display his ability.
This kind of clause should be a standard across the industry to instil a bit of stability in teams/clubs and, make sure that when players are sold they are valued on consistency and not just a good few months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road and OddRiverOakWizards
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back