The Virgil Van Dijk Stays at Southampton Thread

And all the talk is of how Liverpool need Virgil...I would suggest that a team like Saints need players like VVD more. A few places higher in the PL would mean a lot to us....and a quality player can mean that. I suspect Liverpool will be ok and avoid relegation without him.

 

Southampton are prepared to let Virgil van Dijk, 26, 'rot in the stands' than sell the Dutch defender. (Express)


I absolutely agree with this!

It's been a long time coming, but clubs have got to assert their authority and enforce contracts.

"Player power" my arse!

 

If you want the counter discussion from a Liverpool perspective you can find here.

Pre warning. Reading through the replies to his tweet will make your blood boil.

 

Careful, you'll set the scousers off again.

please log in to view this image

Vin

 

I don't really, it's pointless in keeping him here if he absolutely does not want to be. What do we gain from this? Apart from potentially putting off signings in the future if we're not willing to let them leave. This means we go in to the season with Yoshida/Stephens/Bednarek as our only centre backs, and a pissed off Dutchman who we could have sold weeks ago for huge money and reinvested in the squad. But no, we have to try and save face instead of accept that we're not big, successful, or ambitious enough to keep top players when they have better offers elsewhere.

Yeah he signed a six year contract last year which was stupid, but circumstances have changed since then.

 

Whenever you play Liverpool always your CUP FINAL

 

It most certainly is not pointless!

If you give in to Virgil over this, you are effectively saying to every single one of your players, "Sign for us for as long as you like, because, at the end of the day, the contract isn't worth the paper it's written on!"

You simply cannot run a business like that.

Saints have been leaking players to the likes of 'Pool for far too long, and the rot has got to stop, if your board has ambitions of remaining in the Prem.

Plus, there is a knock-on effect for all clubs, including my own. Players, and especially their agents, have got to understand that if the player signs a long contract, it's because the club want him to stay, and that it does not give the player carte blanc to treat the contract simply as nothing more than a pay-rise.

 

That's pretty much the case anyway. If a player isn't motivated to play for you then you're not going to get close to 100% out of them. Do you really want a player like that playing for you? Doesn't sound like a way to run a football team to me.

Doesn't help when Les Reed advertises the club as a stepping stone to players during negotiations (he said this in a club interview a year or so back, should still be on our youtube channel).

Edit - If we're trying to prove a point to Van Dijk & the wider football world about contracts being so important, why are we apparently happy to sell him two years in to a six year deal?

 

Nope, just a semi-final.

please log in to view this image

 

Red bit: You can't see any point in keeping Virgil but that's because we can't accept the fact that we're not ambitious enough to keep him? I really struggle to understand this. If we sell him, we're not ambitious enough to keep him (good) and if we keep him it's because we're not ambitious enough to keep him (bad?). I'm genuinely bewildered by this.

Blue bit: In his statement (let's pretend it wasn't written by his agent) he said that he's been asking for a move for six months. So, he signed a six year contract last year and six months later his circumstances had changed enough that he wanted to leave? Honestly?

Vin

 

I don't know anywhere where anyone from the club said that. Plenty of people on here have said "give it another year" but that may well not be the club's view.

Vin

 

That's my biggest problem this time round . It's not the selling of any player , we are a selling club , but for him to sign a 6 year deal and then change his mind in a matter of a few months , really grates with me .If only he could knuckle down for 1 last FULL season , then he can go . As it stands , I say let him rot and sell in January .

 

What circumstances? The only circumstances that I can see is that he was illegally approached. He signed the long contract and should at least honour it or at the very least the bulk of it. The chances are is that if he had gone about things the right way he stood a chance of changing saints mind and possibly may have been allowed to go within the next two windows. In my opinion he has not done his career too much good.
Saints will have made it clear when he signed that he among a few of the other players were considered to be the core of the side for the near future. Bearing in mind that he only played a few games after signing because of injury. Saints have every right to be annoyed about his antics. It is debatable whether Saints are doing the best thing for themselves but I have to admire their stand and applaud them for doing it.

 

Red Bit - Van Dijk is Champions League quality, we are not. It's not unambitious to sell him, it's sensible. With the size & model club we are, we should have sold him for £60m and invested in a few more players to improve the quality of the squad.

Blue bit - Do you think there was no agreement with the club about him leaving if a big club/offer came in? Seems like that contract was his "stay one more year" deal and gave us leverage to get a good price. His injury seems to have messed that agreement up.

 

1) Poor season, new manager
2) Potential takeover
3) Player in question suffered 7 month injury - a lot of time to think about his future.

 

All that is true..........until he was illegally approached..........He was quite happy till then after all he signed the contract and complimented the club at that time and afterwards.

 

He'll be motivated to play for us by his desire to join a big club. Either Its Man U like Schneiderlin or else he will end up at Stoke or West Ham, Like Berahino or Fonte. Neither he or his agent want that.

And keeping him shows clubs they have to pay our valuation rather than paying low and upsetting the player for a move. And if the market keep going the way it is his valuation will only improve.

Buying a new CB to replace Virgil will be a gamble even paying 30m. Were struggling to replace Fonte and we've been looking for a year now? Quite frankly I think it's less of a risk just to keep Virgil given how in demand CBs are right now.

 

Just a thought (and not suggesting we should) but can we stop him from playing for Holland. If we did and he wasn't injured, we could be punished by not being allowed to play him in a league game....oh, wait a minute

 

Unlike some, I cannot believe that there was anything in the contract about letting him go if a big club came in for him....if there was don't you think Virgil would have mentioned it. Schneiderlin did and he had only a verbal agreement with presumably Nicola (who had left)....verbal agreements as we all know aren't worth the paper they are not written on (unless you shake on it in front of witnesses). Nary a word from Virge, so I'm guessing such a clause doesn't exist and nor does a clause allowing for a notice period.

 

Warning: Anyone allowing tweets to make their blood boil should really get things in perspective

However, thanks for the link, I want these shoes and NOW!!!