Should Virgil remain captain?

VvD & Berty looked the sharpest players in training. Both really stood out with their shooting. Its not even funny.

 

Whilst not doubting for a minute the sincerity of your response what about wanting to kick off (first or second)? I know that this is unlikely, but if a team considered that there would be an advantage in starting, they would then want to lose the toss for choice of ends, just so they could kick off. Or does the ref give the captains a choice of what they are tossing up for? (ooh, er, missus)

 

From the Laws of the Game, Law 8:
Before a kick-off at the start of the match or extra time

• a coin is tossed and the team that wins the toss decides which goal it will attack in the first half of the match.
• the other team takes the kick-off to start the match.
• the team that wins the toss takes the kick-off to start the second half of the match.
• in the second half of the match, the teams change ends and attack the
  opposite goals.

 

Does Oxlaide- Chamberlain?

 

Ah, I may have found a possible issue in our team's knowledge of the game laws.

 

Yep, so if you get him in January he will be off to a big club in the summer

 

The whole Van Dijk saga has been a tragedy for him and for us. We have let our hearts instead of our brains rule our decision making and that is not what you should do in business. He is never going to get back to his previous performance level as the commitment is not there. Let him rot in the reserves and get rid of him in January.

 

Disagree completely. He is an employee of the club and on a contract. True we both loose out this way, however you cannot have players sign long contracts and then decide to end them when they want. In the long run it will be for the best.

 

Sorry Godders can't agree on this..........As much as he has been a big plonker..........He now has to buckle down as per his contract.........If he doesn't.........then he can rot in the reserves which would effectively mean his career could be over. I agree business wise it perhaps would not make sense.......However players do need to be made aware if they sign a contract they will be expected to honour it until both parties agree on a change. You really cannot have players signing an enhanced contract for more money etc and then change their mind because a more fancied club comes in for them. In the long run saints will gain by their stance if it makes players think twice about reneging on their improved contracts. It is not obviously ideal but sometimes you have to make costly decisions as a business for long term benefit.

 

All it will do in the long run is make the better players not want to sign long contracts and leave for less money.

 

Oh man you really like to be negative don't you? You may be right you may be wrong. That is an unknown........Saints will ensure when they sign people that they sign people who really want to be here. Like our recent signings 4 years wasn't it.........Now if they turn out not to make the grade no doubt if a reasonable bid came in they would go........No doubt the proof will be in the pudding........However the signs so far have been good.......even if the football hasn't been........

 

Call it negative, I like to think of it as realistic. True it is an unknown whether that will happen, I am just thinking (perhaps negatively) logically. If you were a player who had been at Saints 2 years and were showing you had adapted to the PL and were doing well then I don't see why you would sign a 5 year new deal. Yes it insures you against injury/loss of form/a pay rise but it would stop you from moving on to an actual big team and play regularly in Europe.

I am sure that every player we have signed really wanted to come to Saints. Mane/Wanyama/Clyne/Lovren (probably forgetting someone who we signed in the PL who have now moved on to bigger things) all would want to join Saints initially as it was a very good opportunity for them. Then another very good opportunity came along and they wanted to leave. As I have said lots of times this VVD scenario won't hamper the clubs ability to attract players from the smaller leagues, I think it will just make the better ones think twice about signing long term deals when they are offered a second contract.

I think a better strategy would've been to sell VVD for mega money, reinvest the £60m+ on 2/3 new players and then we could say to future good players "look, sign this deal, we get another year out of you, you get a payrise, we get big money for you as you still have loads of time left on your deal but we won't stand in your way of leaving". Generating as much revenue as possible is our quickest route to becoming a regular European contender and the best way I can see is by getting as much money from player sales as possible.

 

I think a better strategy would've been to sell VVD for mega money,

_____________________________________

How much 'mega money' were we offered?

 

And think about the implications of a contract. If they choose to run their contract down or refuse a new contract then we have time to source a replacement. It's not just about net profit but about planning the team for the season.

 

None, but Liverpool said they would only bid if they were invited to bid. We could've opened up talks with them and seen what they were willing to pay. If we agreed a fee with them then other teams may have come in and matched the offer/bettered it.

This is obviously all hypothetical (apart from the Liverpool saying they would only bid if we invited them to bit)

 

I thought our mighty BlackBox had replacements sourced for everyone at the club? A list of players for every position I believe Les said.

 

Liverpool were not going to bid mega money, they were going to take the piss. We had to hold firm, and we did.

 

How is a world record fee for a defender not mega money? It was well reported they were happy to go to around £70m for VVD.

Or are you saying that £70m isn't enough for Van Dijk? I take it you're not one of those that complains about how transfer fees have gone stupid & money is ruining football?

 

'Reports say.....'

Yeah, sure. £50M, and some of that would have been add on's. And we owe Celtic a %.

 

i had taken it as us being happy with £70m but liverpool weren't prepared to bid that.