Chelsea are about to launch a £60 million bid for Virgil Van Djik, Arron Sanders takes a look to see if they will be any more successful than Liverpool in their pursuit.

Chelsea are reportedly making progress in their efforts to seal the transfer of Virgil Van Dijk, and are said to have launched a £60million bid for the Saints captain.

Chelsea have been eager to land a new top quality centre-back signing this summer, with Leonardo Bonucci also eyed from Antonio Conte’s old club Juventus.

Sky Italia now claim Chelsea have decided to switch their attention to Van Dijk, and while a deal is not yet struck it is ‘almost there’ according to their report.

However is that not just what sources close to Liverpool had been saying only a few weeks ago !

If the board are to sell Virgil this summer, it will be quiet a come down from their stance only a couple weeks ago regarding interest in the Dutchman from both Liverpool and Man City.

Although selling to Chelsea would be the best destination in my opinion as the club could always request a replacement in exchange in the form of either Nathan Ake or Kurt Zouma.

What do you think Saints fans will Van Dijk still be wearing our shirt come the end of the current transfer window?

Photo: Action Images

SonicBoom added 10:58 - Jun 23 I think the story will be the same. We don't want to sell and so he stays. We will probably sell him for stupid money though which would be 70 mill or above.
2

larry12 added 11:22 - Jun 23 Someone who is pedantic, might point that it is quite not quiet.
1

redandwhitedee added 12:14 - Jun 23 If indeed he goes for anything like this price, then yet again Les Reed and team did a phenomenal job. Too many people criticise him for no apparent reason in my eyes. Along the way toPremier League top 8 status, we sold many players for big money and have replaced with better quality at cheaper prices. I believe VVD was bought essentially to replace Lovren .. I recall many critics of Les Reed at that time. Silence now in that respect...

6

SaintBrock added 12:43 - Jun 23 "We do not want to be a selling club any longer" RK, May 29017 The smell of duplicity always hangs in the air over that part of the town.
2

landerwal added 12:58 - Jun 23 I agree with redandwhitedee. All players have their price and £70m for a player who cost us £13m is fantastic business. No one is irreplaceable in any team (except Messi). Our poor show last season was down to a lack of goals whether VVD was playing or not. Take the money. Nobody was offering anything for VVD this time last year and interest from the fat cat clubs only soared on his form before his injury. We don't know how much his form has been affected by that injury so that this could be a once only opportunity for the club to make serious money from his inevitable transfer.

4

bstokesaint added 13:29 - Jun 23 It’s a difficult one. I want him to stay, but appreciate he is too good and it’s only a matter of time before he goes to one of the world’s elite clubs (not Liverpool). If this is the only sale we do this summer then for me the board would maintain some credibility. However, if the likes of Bertrand and Cedric went too then I can’t see us getting out of this cycle and perceived weakness of being unable to hold onto any talent. We need the new manager in ASAP.

2

BoondockSaint added 13:30 - Jun 23 This would be a good deal because: 1) It's not to the Scouse. 2) Chelski are not our current rivals on the table. 3) It's not to the Scouse. 4) This strengthens a team that will keep the Scouse down and so weakens the Scouse. 5) It's not to the Scouse. Redandwhitedee: Please refresh my memory-who were the two players Les brought in to replace Pelle and Mane who were not only at cheaper prices, but better quality?

0

SaintJez added 14:04 - Jun 23 Saints really need to decide if we are going to try and win things or just continue as a money making machine. If we want the former then we need to hang on to players like VVD (especially if they have long contracts) and look to build a team around them. if we want the latter then 60m is a lot of money so let's cash in, buy some cheap replacements with potential to get better, and aim for a 10th place finish next season with maybe a cup run on the side. That is the reality of the situation. What's our ambition?

3

LordDZLucan added 14:35 - Jun 23 If we sell for £60m I bet you the whole £60m doesn't get invested back into the squad. That's the problem with all this selling of players. Money gets sucked out of the club and I've no idea where it goes.
4

GeordieSaint added 14:49 - Jun 23 They published the accounts really recently so it is quite easy to see where all the money goes if you can be bothered to read it. If he has to go Chelsea probably represents the best business for Saints. Maybe Zouma, Ake and a bag full of money? That would in many ways be a really good deal.
-1

StRipper added 15:08 - Jun 23 He has 5 years left. Keep him for 1 more, like we did with Schneiderlin. Its only the media and the big clubs upping the anti that a deal has to be done now. It isn't true and it doesn't have to be done. Not this season anyway. We need to say no more. If players agree to sign long deals, the only reason for that can't be to get us a bigger price. It has to also have an element of willingness to stay with our club for longer or the whole situation is pointless. If not for the clubs profits, then at least for retaining fan interest.

3

LordDZLucan added 15:11 - Jun 23 Anyone who knows anything about accounts knows that there are several versions of the truth which can all be passed as true and fair by the auditors. The accounts can hide a multitude of sins!
1

GeordieSaint added 15:24 - Jun 23 The implication being that not only are the Liebherrs embezzling money from the club but also defrauding HMRC? I very much doubt either is the case.
0

LordDZLucan added 15:30 - Jun 23 The Liebherrs own the club so they could hardly embezzle themselves! All I'm saying is that it's not always readily apparent what's going on just by looking at a set of accounts.
1

SanDiegoSaint added 15:43 - Jun 23 Boondock, Wasn't Austin bought in to replace Pelle? And. Redmond to replace Mane? And then in addition we got Gabbiadini too.
0

StRipper added 16:18 - Jun 23 Hey SanDiegoSaint , no, thats not true. We were assured by the club that neither of these players were replacements and, based on their playing style, strengths and weaknesses, I'd say that is true. I know there could be some cynicism about what the club say and what they do, but these players are nothing alike. Bar the fact that Austin has a good scoring record and can hold up play

1

BoondockSaint added 16:44 - Jun 23 Hi SanDiego- Austin in his prime, yes, but when we got him it was "We can get a player with a nose for the goal on the cheap because other clubs are worried about his injury record, so lets give it a shot." But I don't think he was supposed to be Pelle's perfect replacement. Redmond? He was the leading scorer on a relegated team, so that's again a bit of a gamble.He's fast, but not the lightning speed of Mane. Either way neither player was a "better" replacement. Gabbiadini might be Mane's replacement, but again Dithering Les bought him in the winter window, not the previous summer when the deal should have been done. All the best , Boondock

2

Blogs 32 bloggers

Stevenage Polls