I agree it probably won't happen, but it's isn't ridiculous to the point where it's not worth discussing.
As for swapping virgil, nobody has mentioned that as a possibility have they? Never going to happen.
Showcase club
- Thread starter stjohnson
- Start date
-
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
-
As for swapping virgil, nobody has mentioned that as a possibility have they? Never going to happen.
I don't read anything into the length of his remaining contract, in terms of what his remaining time with us will actually be. I just see it as a way of ensuring that we get the best price possible for him, avoiding a Wanyama/Clyne type situation.
We've got history of selling our players when, I presume, our market valuation of them is met. The possible exception to that may have Morgan, when it may have been us putting our foot down that particular summer and saying enough is enough, it's getting stupid now. But ignoring that, we seem to sell when the right price is offered. And Virgil is so good, and so many top teams could do with improving their CB positions, that teams would be stupid not to offer us such a price. I'm just interested as to what that price is. I pray that it's £50m+, but I really do fear that we'd accept £35m - £40m. What I think his market value is might not align with what the club think.
Massively more likely that we will sell them VVD, and they won't sell us Sturridge. Imagine they would refuse to sell us Sturridge FIRST, followed by us selling VVD to them.
However, I don't think we will sell VVD, but if he did go there, it would almost certainly happen like that.
We do have history of selling when market value is met. But we also have a history of only selling when they have 2 years remaining on their contract. Let's hope the board stand firm.
Serious question, Bill. Have you ever posted anything even vaguely positive on the forum?
This place is doing my head in tonight.
You must log in or register to see images
Vin
It's a good question you ask. I, myself have had the same question rolling around in my head for quite some time, waiting for a sound explanation to pop out. I think it's about attitude, from the club, its supporters, and also the media. And that's a slow thing to change. The club have been trying in a measured way since they were taken over. The majority of supporters have been surpisingly slow, in my opinion, to wake up, never quite realising the ambitions the club has. They have almost caught up now, maybe. The media are stuck in their old hierarchy. Southampton sell. It was ever thus - post McMenemy. It doesn't need to be like that. As I said, it's a slow process. How does that explain Leicester, Stoke and Everton.? Leicester and Stoke are similar clubs and have been subject to player raiding. Everton used to be in the top hierarchy, along with the likes of Aston Villa. But the times they are a-changing, along with attitudes. As Saints supporters we're being impatient for that change, and rightly so. That's as it should be.
That's the second anti-hardware message I've seen this evening. Earlier someone sent me an email from their iPad. The iPad generates the message on its own, by default. The user can turn this off if they know how to. I sent a reply back from my 'Super-Duper, exquisitely wonderful, isn't modern, though 4 years obsolete, technology fun, Samsung Galaxy S2.
I got a laugh, at least.
Intrigued to know who the players for whom Stoke have turned down big money from top clubs are.
Ditto Everton. I suppose one could be John St... oh.
Leicester actually lost N'golo Kante, and almost Vardy. Ditto Mahrez - it was just that the UCL enabled them to throw £100k+/- per week salaries at them.
It's the way of the world, you can hold on to them a season or so longer, but they go eventually.
Ditto Everton. I suppose one could be John St... oh.
Leicester actually lost N'golo Kante, and almost Vardy. Ditto Mahrez - it was just that the UCL enabled them to throw £100k+/- per week salaries at them.
It's the way of the world, you can hold on to them a season or so longer, but they go eventually.
You can hold on to them for as long as their contract states, it's just good business to sell them rather force them to run the contract down. Hence why we tend to sell with 2 years remaining. This nonsense about "contracts mean nothing" is exactly that. Contracts mean whatever the board decide they mean - it is down to the board to judge each situation individually. Our board have (so far) made the right decision pretty much everytime. Let's hope this continues with Van Dijk.
If you really want a melt down subject.....consider this....... A ban will be put on any Saints player leaving until after the take over. Then the new owner will sell as many players as he can so he can recoup his 200 million . Then we will probably be back slowly to the lower leagues.....so we start again............?
Ok I'll get me coat......
.
Ok I'll get me coat......
.
I prefer KFAs. Which I expect you can work out easily enough.
I know **** all about all of these letters and slang terms nippers* use so what does KFA mean?
*How about that for a bit of Southampton vernacular.
Look at the players Stoke buy. They usually buy the players that have been at the big clubs and it didn't work out. So of course they will be able to keep them longer (and the fact they pay bigger wages).
We buy players from the small teams or leagues that want to advance to the next stage.
We buy players from the small teams or leagues that want to advance to the next stage.
If VVD goes to any club that doesn't begin with Bar and end with Celona, I would be very disappointed with us and him.
He is too good for the top English clubs.
He is too good for the top English clubs.