29 Jul 2017 17:36:44
I find it disturbing that some Liverpool fans seem to think they have a right to VVD. I mean he's a Southampton player with a Southampton contract. Southampton pay both him and his agent. Southampton bought him in to the EPL. They have no right to tell us what we should do with our player simply because they used to win things 25 years ago. If we do sell. (I hope we don't) I hope that it's not to them. What does it show they made an illegal move for our player l, didn't get any punishment and got exactly what they wanted.

1.) 30 Jul 2017
30 Jul 2017 12:34:24
Get over yourselves will you.
Liverpool long moved on from the VVD matter. publicly at that.
And so have the fans. with the exception of a smaller section.

The world doesn't revolve around Virgil Van Dijk. most certainly not Liverpool's. You may not know it and want to believe otherwise, but I assure you.

LFC had long moved on from this. You'd be better off doing the same.

As for you not wanting to sell to Liverpool, am sure you don't need me to point it out to you that your feelings/ hopes mean absolutely bugger and have no relevance.

This is a business. And Southampton, is part and parcel of it.
It amazes me that you should be "surprised/ offended" when your players want to leave for better club s. better prospects and more money indeed.

You're a long way off competing at any sort of high level. You in no position either to pay high end wages.
Most players are driven by the common factors of money and trophies. Neither of which Southampton can offer.
Crucially, these players don't necessarily have an affinity with your club. or any other club for that matter.

Just now, Barcelona want Coutinho. If the player wants to leave. then we get the best deal and move on.
We not at that level. so understandably, I don't begrudge the player.

With the exception of perhaps the elite sides (Madrid, Bayern and Barca) . every club below could be seen as a stepping stone.
It's just the nature of the game. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly nothing personal.

Every team would LIKE to hold onto their best players. But quite frankly, it's nigh on impossible. unless you Madrid, Bayern Barca.

"Force" the player? How does that help? More detrimental in the long run than you realise.
Gonna be paying gazillion pounds to player possibly not overly arsed. Disruptive. Value likely plummets as well.

And to flip the coin, Tadic deteriorates. You wanna get rid. 3 years left on contract. Player says NO. He wants you to honour the contract. the full three years. He ain't going nowhere.

So how does that work out huh? Now the shoe is in the other foot. I bet you be the first on here murdering the player.

What it comes down to is being reasonable. You don't want your team having it difficult signing players as they'd be concerned with the manner of your approach they wanna leave.

If the stance was that of forcing players yo stay against their will, they'd practically be no business done.

Look at Monaco. Accept that a player wants out AND get the best price for him. which they've done.
The fans won't like losing their best players, but it's the reality. Borussia Dortmund the same as well.
And it's not going to stop anytime soon.

The trick is being able to shrewdly reinvest that money and rebuild.
Should VVD be sold this summer, whether it's to Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, rest assured it'll be for record breaking money.

And you'd have done well for it. Better still should you reinvest it sharply. which I believe you'll do.

2.) 30 Jul 2017
30 Jul 2017 13:16:48

3.) 30 Jul 2017
30 jul 2017 21:17:32
liverpool ashamed of nothing upset by everything.

4.) 30 Jul 2017
30 Jul 2017 22:26:09
So over it you've come onto the saints site to explain it to us in one of the longest posts I've ever seen?

5.) 31 Jul 2017
31 Jul 2017 00:06:44
But you're not addressing the issue. An illegal approach was made and the player had his head turned. Not only that but Van Dijk was happy to accept a pay boast and the captaincy only a few months ago. Quite frankly I don't expect Van Dijk to be a Saints player for much longer, of course he won't be. But I believe he is capable of playing at a far higher level than Liverpool can offer. Also he should not be sold at the detriment of the club. Sign a suitable replacement FIRST. Then let him go for a price WE state when WE'RE ready. If he wanted out he shouldn't of signed a new contract. He should also put in a transfer request and not expect any kind of loyalty bonus.

6.) 01 Aug 2017
01 Aug 2017 18:38:05
IOW, although I think Suka is too ruthless, and certainly not a true representation of a Liverpool fan, frankly embarrassing. And although Liverpool did make an illegal approach. which I'm really against, you have to remember that VVD and his agent approached Liverpool, Liverpool didn't in any way 'turn his head'. he brought his attention towards us. We then decided we wanted him and then spoke with him directly rather than speaking to the club first (which is liverpools fault) but you can't make out we turned his head as he very much wanted out beforehand. And on his ambitions to play at a higher level, and you saying Liverpool aren't at that level. have you ever considered that we may think he's what we need to reach that next level? It's called progressing and we've acknowledged he is one player who can help us achieve that. I've no doubt you'll replace him you're experts at scouting/ recruitment. P. s sorry to jump on this page. I'd seen an article saying VVD hadn't trained with the team today at the choice of the club and wanted to see if I could clarify this. Cheers for the into Liverpool South/ Liverpool B fans (joke)

{Ed002's Note - van Dijk and his agent did not approach Liverpool. This started when Klopp briefed a number of jounalists in April with the dole intent of unsettling the four players. Morally reprehensible but not illegal. Klopp then met with the player and continued to contact the player illegally - completely and utterly unaccetable and it resulted in a complaint to the Premier League that sits on file.}

7.) 01 Aug 2017
01 Aug 2017 19:06:05
I understand all that ED002, couldn't agree more, like I stated above. but ED001 made us aware that it was in fact VVD/ his agent approaching us with his availability originally and that he wasn't even in our transfer plans? I only use words spoken by the eds as they're usually reliable. It can get very confusing when one ed says one thing and the other ed says different. Of course what ed001 may have said maybe incorrect, but I have to trust what you guys say in this fake media/ reporting world we are in. Apologies if my statement above was incorrect.

{Ed001's Note - yes, I am told it was only Klopp meeting VVD around then. LFC had been informed the player would be on the move in the summer beforehand.}

8.) 02 Aug 2017
02 Aug 2017 08:57:01
Ed001, can I ask who you support? thanks.

{Ed001's Note - Liverpool mate. But that does not mean I agree with the way they handled things. Nor with the way VVD has conducted himself. I know he signed a new contract with a promise to be sold if teams that met certain criteria came in for him, but there are right ways to go about things. Actually no party is exactly covering themselves in glory here to be fair, but Saints have a good bargaining position with a lengthy contract and other teams are interested that meet the criteria for a sale, so I think it will end up a bit like Fonte, where he just ends up going somewhere to get out, rather than the team he wanted to join.}