In many interviews Les Reed has referred to us as a 'showcase' club , a club that provides players with a good standing in the premier league, then sells them on to your Liverpool's and Man uniteds of this world. Now im not silly enough to think that Saints will be able to keep hold of players indefinitely but the likes of Leicester , Stoke and Everton all of similar sort of size seem to be able to say 'No' to the clubs that want their players. The casing point is Virgil Van Dijk , signed to a 6 year contract but reports everywhere suggest that the above clubs will snap him up. Surely there is a time where if Saints want to be successfull in this league they need to stop selling to rivals. If Barca come in with a huge offer for Van Dijk then fair enough but to roll over and get our bellies tickled by Liverpool again will anger a lot of fans. Van Dijk is the best defender we've had in my memory and we have him tied down for 6 years , maybe this january or summer its time to really invest in the team and maybe just maybe we might be able to keep him. Its all about ambition now, i like Reed and think hes done a great job but its time to push on and show players like Van Dijk that the club wants to win things. Thoughts.....
It is the way the club is run, but the intention is always to progress as well....using the finance to improve our squad. However, we must remember Virgil hasn't gone yet....and I cannot see that happening in January. There is no financial imperative for us to sell him or anyone midseason...he hasn't got a sell-by date of January 31st.
I will be extremely disappointed in the board if we sell him this summer. Even if we get an offer of £50m, he will be worth the same if not more in another year or 2.
That might be the time to sell him as he will command a huge, huge fee. What did Manchester United pay for Ferdinand? Around £27m and that was at least 10 years ago. And they got the best part of 10 years out of him. Move on a decade and VVD is in the same class as Rio and of a similar age to when Rio went to Old Trafford. So at least £50m. It is possible that Celtic my have included a sell-on clause so I would put the fee up to £60m and in exchange get Schneiderlein should that be feasible beacuse I have a feeling Morgan could play as a CB a la Mascherano, Carrick, even the great Franz Beckenbauer.
He won't go. All the sales since MELTDOWN! summer have been players in the last two years of contract. Of course there are rumours by NECTITKs* on the Echo site that there's a release clause of £30M. Vin * Not Even Close To ITK† † In The Know. Seriously?
Thoughts? When did we roll over to Liverpool and get our belly tickled? Still don't see where we haven't done anything but good deals with them in our favour (except loss of good player obviously). Clyne maybe but 12m for a full back in his last year was still ok to good. The rest have been very good deals.
The only thing you be sure of is they will all go eventually. I wouldn't sell VVD until he has 2 years remaining and won't sign another contract, he's worth more to us than the money. Future captain (sorry Jose) and great role model for the youngsters. There must have been discussions when he signed such a long contract about what we would expect and what he was happy with. He didn't need to sign such a long contract if he didn't want to. To sell after a year of a 6 year contract would be farcical.
Also an interesting point r.e Daniel Sturridge. If this loan deal with future fee of £25m is legit and goes ahead, then things could be slightly awkward come summer. If Liverpool come in for Van Dijk and we refuse (which we would), could this lead them to playing hard-ball with Sturridge?
Given that I am completely resigned to him leaving in the summer, I would be happy with £50m. And I would be ecstatic with £50m plus Liverpool paying, say, 30% or 40% of Sturridge's wages (even more so if it annoyed West Ham fans and staff, who felt it unfair that they were competing with us for Sturridge's signature, but with Liverpool not willing to cover any of his wages in dealing with them - ie putting us at a financial advantage).
Why do you think we will sell him if he still has 5 years left on his contract? What would be the advantages of doing that as opposed to waiting til he has 2 or at least 3 years on his contract?
If Virgil is happy at Saints come the summer, we can simply say to potential suitors: "£75mill or **** off". He will certainly go at some point but please not Liverpool Virgil.
Even if he declares that he wants to leave, he will get on with it. Lukaku has said he wants out for 2 years now and look how well he is still playing. VVD would do the same. Much more likely to be a Lukaku situation than a Berahino.
Probably wouldn't care as we would have got a half season from him and we couldn't afford his wages on contract anyway. We'd just get ourselves a nice cheap(ish) striker. People really shouldn't make situations more complicated than they are. 1. probably (almost certainly) not going to happen. 2. if it did, we wouldn't be interested in swapping Virgil.
