The Virgil Van Dijk Stays at Southampton Thread

Nah, he got a shiner.

 

Oooh, not yet - I'm still waiting to see if Gaston Ramirez will be joining us!

 

That's ok, that's a different thread

 

Can we remove "Liverpool" from the title, it flatters their sense of entitlement and is no longer relevant. We could then replace "teenage-sulk" with "re-integration" once missy has decided to stop flouncing around.

 

It has had it's time.

 

Logically, Virgil has no choice but to knuckle down and make the best of it. That's the logical choice....now what do we think he is going to do. Will we see shots of him back in training with the main squad later in the week....shall I toss a coin.

 

Virgil is no longer in a state of limbo. He is ours. We like him and we want him to play. All he needs to do is knuckle down and get on with life and we will all love him once more.

 

Not me. He'd have to play here until he retires if he wants my 'love'. Great if he plays well for us but that's it.

 

I'm glad the title has changed. I didn't mind the sulk bit, but the Liverpool connection just drew the wums like moths to a flame. Sadly without the same result.

 

We need to move to a position of reconciliation if we are to see the best of Virgil again. If we are not prepared to do that we might just well have sold him.

 

That the ideal Godders, but even if we don't then I still think we did the right think.... I don't agree with "we might well have just sold him" as this wasn't just about a player playing in our team or not.

 

YES, YES, YES.

 

I don't think it matters how we as fans feel about him, so long as no one boos. I doubt anyone will boo, because our "fans" only seem to boo players of less ability but greater character than Virgil.

All that matters is how he mends bridges with the manager and the squad. There is no way back into my heart for a player who has shown such contempt for the club, but that's my problem, not his.

 

We'll just have to see how it impinges on his game. I doubt he'd make deliberate mistakes, but he will only be back to his best if he is a person who can put events out of his mind and concentrate on the now. If he starts second guessing himself because of the crowd scrutiny, he won't be the player he was.

 

As a player, he hardly carried himself like an individual plagued by self doubt.

Once he gets on the pitch - if he does - I have no doubt whatsoever that he will give his best. It's getting him and the squad to the point where the manager simply has to pick him, that might take a little time.

 

He has missed weeks of team training, preseason matches and the start of the season....so will be fit to a certain extent, but not up to speed with what is going on under Mauricio. As said, could take a while.

 

I note that to boo or not to boo at VVD is being discussed amongst the fandom. Most are sensible and do not support booing at any player in a Saints shirt....unless they are called Forster for whom it is always apparently open season I would never boo, but I reserve the right to switch my polo mint from one side of the mouth to the other and to glare aggressively at Virgil.

 

You're 'ard on that bloody island! He'll have to settle for not hearing my wonderful baritone singing his name. Of course, when he scores the winner against Liverpool he'll get my full banshee scream, but then anyone can get that.

Love your comment about Forster. I'd love someone to explain it all rationally to me. Ah, sorry. See my error. Looking for a rational explanation. Stupid old me, eh?

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...in-premier-league-swung-from-players-to-clubs

A Q & A with an agent about recent events in the Transfer Window which mentions VVD a few times. A lengthy read but quite interesting.

 

That was quite a mention.! We were practically the prime subject of the article. The TV deal has effectively brought the PL competition closer.

Q] With the latest TV deal having made princes even of relative paupers throughout the Premier League, is it the case clubs simply don't have to sell anymore?

A] "Absolutely. Southampton is your prime example. For years they have sold their best players. Sadio Mane, [Morgan] Schneiderlin, [Luke] Shaw, [Adam] Lallana, [Dejan]Lovren and [Nathaniel] Clyne have all gone to the big four or five to keep boosting their coffers. Now with the Sky and BT money rolling in, they're already running out of places to store all their cash. Rather than begrudgingly accept it when a player wants to leave, they can have their say. They've clearly told Van Dijk he's staying put, and so they should. All the sulking and transfer requests in the world shouldn't bend their will if they genuinely believe he is worth more to them than £60 million.
With revenue streams continuing to increase, why couldn't Southampton have a go for Champions League football? They're spending £15 million-plus on players, and that number is only going to increase. Treading water isn't going to be enough for them. Just ask Claude Puel [it got him the sack]. Even Bournemouth with tiny crowds (albeit softened by very rich backers) have spent serious money on players this season."

And the other Saints bits:

Q] Van Dijk signed a new six-year contract in May 2016. It's hard to feel too much sympathy now he's desperate to leave barely more than a year on. Do you think from a professional perspective it was an error on his part to commit for so long?

A] "The player probably thought he was being cute when he signed. When he agreed to that deal he knew (well, he thought he knew) Southampton were a selling club. Also, don't forget there's a paucity of decent centre-halves in the Premier League. It's a win-win situation for the player. Massive security with a six-year deal and also a huge hike in wages from not just his Celtic days but previous contract at Southampton. He must have thought if he could get his performance levels consistently at their best, which in fairness he did, he'd be off to one of the big boys before too long. Best-laid plans and all that."

Q] Was the current situation not always inevitable? Why not just insist on a get-out clause?

A] "In hindsight, he should have done. Maybe his representatives suggested it and couldn't come up with a figure. I don't think Southampton have used those clauses in the past. It's unlikely it never came up when the deal was being negotiated, but then as I say, the precedents out there suggest Southampton are a selling club."

Q] Are we being too hard on players? Do clubs put pressure on players to sign longer contracts? What would be the financial implications, for example, if Van Dijk had said he'd only sign for two years? Would a club ever buy in these circumstances?

A] "No, they wouldn't. Clubs will say they have spent a lot of money, so in return deserve a certain amount of loyalty/time at the club to get a return on their investment. Southampton paid around £13 million-£14 million for Van Dijk two years ago, which you can say now is a steal, but at the time was a fairly risky buy for a club of their size.
In hindsight, agreeing to a six-year deal seems a mistake on the player's part, even withstanding additional payments and scheduled loyalty bonuses to follow. With a standard three-year deal, he would by now have had just a year left to run on a 'decent' deal and would, in all likelihood, have been offered at a fee enticing to pretty much all of the Premier League's biggest clubs. Wait another six months, and he could have moved on a free transfer. His signing-on fee would have been a thing of beauty!"