Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Still No Bids For Van Dijk !
Wednesday, 30th Aug 2017 09:53

Saints go into the final hours of the transfer window as a club in limbo as they have yet to receive a single bid for Virgil Van Dijk.

The Virgil Van Dijk situation seems to be one of the strangest ever in the history of transfer windows, on one hand there is a player who is so desperate to go he cannot fulfill his contract and play for his club and then on the other, despite media speculation there does not seem to be a single club interested in him if we judge it by how many offers that Saints have received which currently stands at the same figure back in May.

It seems that informal talks have taken place between Saints and other clubs about what deal if any would be considered and certainly the media report that Van Dijk's agent has been busy even going as far to suggest that the player himself has again met up with officials from certain clubs, despite not having formal permission to do so by Saints.

So why have there been no bids ?

Liverpool you would have thought would have made a bid, but they appear scared to do so because that would invoke the wrath of the authorities and they could face sanctions for illegal approaces and improper conduct not just in this case but going on from issues with illegal approaches to academy players for which they are already banned from signing youngsters from other English clubs.

They are running scared and that is why they have taken the not so subtle approach of using the player himself to force through a move, they had been hoping that other clubs would step forward with a bid and that Saints would accept, that would then allow them to step in and make their move claiming innocence in the situation and that they had only been interested once Saints had said he could go.

This is probably why there have been no other bids, the likes of Chelsea Manchester City and Arsenal know that Liverpool are only trying to use them as leaverage, that if they bid and agree a deal with Saints that Van Dijk wil turn it down and in will step Liverpool to sign the player and make them look stupid in the process.

In football these days deals are agreed between agents and clubs before bids are made, although it is the wrong way round according to the rules, it does make the process easier and save time all round, the footballing World knows that it is not worth bidding as they will be stool pigeons.

So we go into the final 36 hours of the window with nothing changed from 3 months ago, all we can do now is wait and see if Liverpool will risk a bid and in doing so risk an investigation and almost certain sanctions.

The Anfield club could well come in late in the day having completed it's transfer business for this window they might think it worth the risk and hope that if banned it would merely be till next June and just one window, but it is a big risk.

The strange thing is that Liverpool are not trying to sign anyone else and that shows the substance of their dealings and their agreements with Van Dijk's agent, given that their centre of defence is notoriously leaky and cost them dearly last year, they either have a big £60 million hole in it or they don't, you don't usually spend this sort of money on a player unless you have a real need.

I think we could see a bid in the next day, Liverpool have burn't their bridges and are desperate, their good start to the season aligned with several of their Premier League rivals poor ones has led them to believe they have a decent chance of winning that elusive first Premier League title, they do not want to blow it.

They have gambled big time and now rralise that it could cost them very dearly, but it is all of their own doing and their underhand dealings, if they had approached things in the right manner then it is likely that if they had met Saints valuation then Van Dijk would have been a Liverpool player a month ago, already defensive frailties cost them dearly at Watford, if they should lose out on that title by two points then they may have already paid the price for their behavior, we will find out in 9 months time.

Photo: Action Images



Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.



lovemachine added 10:15 - Aug 30
just sell and re-invest money into a striker ffs
-8

Slacker added 10:22 - Aug 30
Are the club in Limbo? Surely if, as clearly communicated consistently they don't intend to sell, this surely suits our intentions?
4

SaintPaulVW added 10:22 - Aug 30
We have 6 CB's so he could be sold. However it will be a complete cave in. Unless it is an unprecedented fee say £75 million, I just cannot see it happening.

The amount of distraction this has caused is ridiculous. I guess this is all part of the plan to make us so fed up we just say 'yeah sure'.

If a bid if that size had been received early in the window when we could have reinvested in areas that the squad need, I think it should have been considered. However it wasn't done that way so we are where we are.

Think he's staying and he needs to man up, apologise and show us why he's so highly rated. He's never going to be a legend here now so time to act like a good pro.
4

steve73 added 10:29 - Aug 30
Thank god it'll all be over soon, I've wasted far too much of my summer following a story about an idiot and the lengths he'll go to for more money. More column inches have been written about this clown than the impending threat of a nuclear war. I'm so utterly bored of Virgil now that I'd gladly kick him out the door myself. Whatever happens I say good riddance, I'd never want to see him in our team again anyway.
5

helpineedsomebody added 10:44 - Aug 30
wait until pc is sold then the fun begins
only the new owner will decide if he goes & if kruger& reed are over ruled then there position in the club will become untenable.
from day one i would have sold him for 100 million pounds
with that kind of money
1 the new owner could pay off half of what he has borrowed from the hongkong bank
2 invest in a top 6 manager
3 upgrade st marys
4 invest in new managers from the city of london
5 retire kruger & reed
-16

GeordieSaint added 10:47 - Aug 30
Good, I totally back the stance of the club. Remember, Virgil is one of the best centre backs about and the way he drives forward and distributes the ball will be important in improving our attacking play. I don't buy into the 6 centre back argument either, gardos would be gone but it is unlikely anyone would match his wages and if Virgil is 'reintegrated' bednarek may well go on loan. The worst scenario for the club is that he won't play which is unlikely, if that happens the club will still have won as they have made a point to all future wantaways and can move him on next year.
10

SonicBoom added 10:49 - Aug 30
What I don't get is this. Yes Liverpool were caught out. Yes they got a ticking off and they had to apologise.
But why can't they make a bid? It seems bizarre that is they bid then they will get in trouble for what they did before. Either they behaved illegally or they didn't.
Anyway, I do't get why if they bid now it somehow triggers some sort of disciplinary action. Why could they not just make a bid using the correct process this time round.
0

LondonSaint added 11:00 - Aug 30
Ha, I enjoyed this article - you're right, I think this one actually justifies the term "saga"! Unless we sell to Liverpool for less than £75m I think it's a win-win for Saints (reputation-wise) so I'm pretty happy with how it's gone.

In other news I see Snodgrass has had a go at Bilic. They want him off their books and I wonder whether a very cut price move for him could be a good one. Creative player, hard worker, proven output in his preferred position (Wide right or behind the striker). Not a long-term option, or top quality but for a couple of seasons could be a good, cheap option that is a bit more offensive than JWP or SD.

SonicBoom - Liverpool having to wait for us to say "Go" is probably the disciplinary action from the first incident.
2

SanMarco added 11:07 - Aug 30
Good question SonicBoom. I have been thinking the same. LondonSaint: were there sanctions after the first incident?
0

landerwal added 11:08 - Aug 30
Just to answer SonicBoom, Liverpool made an illegal approach to VVD. As there have been no firm bids for the player any approach to Saints now would be a continuation of the their underhand dealings and they run a real risk of getting a blanket ban from any transfer dealings for some time and this for a club that thinks it is still a big player in world football would be a disaster, added to which they still would still not end up with VVD playing for them. Double wammy. Shame!
4

LondonSaint added 11:12 - Aug 30
^^^ what he said :)
0

RogerToye added 11:13 - Aug 30
I think Abroad he must go, after he plays one more full season at least before being sold. bit like RK asked of Schneiderlin and wanyama and even then it still is a long way back to redemption from his attitude. Young footballers today are like Spoilt brats. Loyalty is done away because of vastly inflated wages you know the story.
3

legod7 added 11:19 - Aug 30
After the Liverpool fiasco I believe Chelsea's stance was they would not bid for him unless Saints said he was for sale. As this is still the case then that is probably why Chelsea have not made a formal bid.
3

SanMarco added 11:20 - Aug 30
I see - so Liverpool are pretending (not very hard) that they have no interest in VVD. It is a total farce. Does anyone who takes even a passing interest in football NOT know that Liverpool are up to their necks in it over this? They should be given the ban NOW and that will solve the problem.
13

highfield49 added 12:26 - Aug 30
Hypothetically if vvd were to announce that he has retired from football would Saints be able to retain his registration as a player? If he were to "retire" Saints would stop paying him and his contract would presumably become void? Would that mean he could come "out of retirement" and sign for another club in the future? Could that be the ultimate underhand way of getting his move or would it not be allowed by the "authorities" (FA/EPLetc)? Anyone know?
0

WanderingSaint added 12:43 - Aug 30
Truly staggered that one person here thinks that nuclear war is "impending," and another thinks that pretending to retire and reversing that decision gets you out of a contract. I don't "know," but I definitely "know."
-2

pintsizedsaint added 14:22 - Aug 30
Sonicboom: Liverpool cannot bid as they know it is likely SFC would complain again to the FA. This is because they have complained already that Liverpool illegally 'tapped up' their player with the intention of unsettling him and getting him to force a move. Clearly SFC have enough evidence to prove they did that.

That means Liverpool know that, should they bid, they would be trying to re-start what they got caught doing earlier this summer. Reports suggest Liverpool have attempted to negotiate with SFC outside of a formal 'bid' in the hope SFC agree (and therefore do not make a complaint). SFC have told them to do one, so Liverpool are stuck.

The one possible option is if another club bids and SFC accept that bid: LFC can then make a bid with the hope that VVD will accept their offer come what way. That way Liverpool can deny they have directly caused the situation. However, that is shaky ground as SFC can always point to the fact LFC got caught red handed deliberately unsettling a player. In addition, SFC get to decide whose offer to accept (although if LFC offered more than other clubs, that would be silly).

Truth be told is that, unless SFC agree to sell VVD to liverpool (which they havent and it is very unlikely they will) Liverpool cannot do a thing about it. That is why ex-players encouraged VVD to take matters into his own hands (in order to put pressure on SFC to sell after a clear break down of relationships). Trouble is, it hasnt deterred SFC whatsoever.

I still maintain that SFC are likely to decline any offer for VVD now. Even if it is silly, they have maintained a clear stance. I suspect that the only way this would ever happen is if it was a clearly looney sum (£90-100million) - but even then they would face criticism of not practicing what they preach.

Sell him in Jan or next year - he's not going anywhere and it is not in his interests to not play for months on end.
2

SaintBrock added 14:56 - Aug 30
Nick, please find something else to write about other than this nonsense repeated ad nauseam. How about we have a 7 day moratorium on this topic and we all come back after the break and start talking about football....

....and yes nuclear warfare is a real possibility in the Far East which might detract from an otherwise 'intriguing' season of PL football - until the January transfer window opens that is.


... and will there still be honey for tea? Er, no old chap!
0

Chesham_Saint added 15:47 - Aug 30
More to the point..."stool pigeons"? whatever happened to 'stalking horses'?

In any event, a sale to Man City or Chelsea at a ridiculous price (with a sell on clause) would just about be palatable. No sale to the Victims would be acceptable. Ever.
2

Keesie66 added 15:55 - Aug 30
Unbelievable that we do not compete for a guy like Krychowiak who will now go to West Brom, surely he is an improvement on what we already have and rumours are around £15 million....
0

sambat added 17:17 - Aug 30
I wish Saints would just put a £100m price tag on him - ANY club, take it or leave it.
Be glad to see the back of the Dutch Scouser.
0

SaintBrock added 19:17 - Aug 30
Now the Ox is going there, what in hellfire's name is it with them and anything with a link to Southampton FC.
1

BoondockSaint added 19:27 - Aug 30
They just can't get enough of us: Sky is reporting the Scouse have just done the deal for Oxlade-Chamberlain.
0

AirFlorida added 20:09 - Aug 30
I really hope we don't let (Dick) Van Dijk go in this window. I'm past caring about him as a player and would love to see him rot away but I understand we do need to offload him. I'd argue by not cashing in now at a top dollar price and selling him for (probably) a lot less in the next window would pay for itself in the longer run with the message it sends out to our other players (and their agents) who just want to up sticks and leave when it suits them.
0

SaintBrock added 09:22 - Aug 31
samba, the reason is simple, he is not for sale which is unconditional. As I reminded people recently Kreuger stated that as an absolute not with conditions attached. putting any sort of price on his head says he is for sale!
0


You need to login in order to post your comments

Blogs 31 bloggers

Knees-up Mother Brown #22 by wessex_exile

Charlton Athletic Polls

About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024