It's too early to say, but the signs are there. I liked reading Sid Lowe's piece on him https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...pellegrino-complete-coach-southampton-manager
Virgiling on the vandijkulous
- Thread starter Skullflower
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
That's carte blanche to get back in there.
Apparently not because 'FSG value their probity'. And their deludedness, by the sound of it.
Liverpool will not face any action from the Premier League for allegedly tapping up Virgil van Dijk.
Southampton made an official complaint to the Premier League this month after being angered by widespread reports that the Dutchman wanted to move to Anfield to work with Jürgen Klopp. After a preliminary investigation, however, the League has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to start disciplinary proceedings.
Southampton have not withdrawn their complaint, but accepted an apology from Liverpool three weeks ago and will not push for them to be charged.
The Premier League will not take any action unless new information becomes available, which, given that Southampton submitted all the evidence at their disposal with their initial complaint, appears unlikely.
Premier League lawyers have spoken to both clubs and are satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed.
Liverpool will be relieved to escape without being charged, particularly as they were sanctioned this year by the Premier League for tapping up an academy player at Stoke City and offering his family inducements.
In that instance the club were fined £100,000 and banned from signing academy players for 12 months, and although a fine was the most likely outcome if they had been found guilty in the Van Dijk case, the Premier League has the power to impose transfer bans on repeat offenders.
Liverpool have not denied making an illegal approach to Van Dijk, but their punishment will be restricted to the humiliation of being forced to make a very public climbdown and the probable loss of a key transfer target.
Klopp still wants to sign Van Dijk, but has been told by his employers that another move for the 25-year-old is unrealistic and so is prioritising other targets such as RB Leipzig’s Naby Keita.
During the talks between the two clubs before the apology, Southampton made it clear that they would not sell Van Dijk to Liverpool at any price. In addition, Fenway Sports Group, Liverpool’s owner, values its reputation for probity and does not want to be seen to be going back on its word.
Southampton are hopeful that Van Dijk will stay, but Chelsea and Manchester City are also interested in him.
Liverpool will not face any action from the Premier League for allegedly tapping up Virgil van Dijk.
Southampton made an official complaint to the Premier League this month after being angered by widespread reports that the Dutchman wanted to move to Anfield to work with Jürgen Klopp. After a preliminary investigation, however, the League has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to start disciplinary proceedings.
Southampton have not withdrawn their complaint, but accepted an apology from Liverpool three weeks ago and will not push for them to be charged.
The Premier League will not take any action unless new information becomes available, which, given that Southampton submitted all the evidence at their disposal with their initial complaint, appears unlikely.
Premier League lawyers have spoken to both clubs and are satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed.
Liverpool will be relieved to escape without being charged, particularly as they were sanctioned this year by the Premier League for tapping up an academy player at Stoke City and offering his family inducements.
In that instance the club were fined £100,000 and banned from signing academy players for 12 months, and although a fine was the most likely outcome if they had been found guilty in the Van Dijk case, the Premier League has the power to impose transfer bans on repeat offenders.
Liverpool have not denied making an illegal approach to Van Dijk, but their punishment will be restricted to the humiliation of being forced to make a very public climbdown and the probable loss of a key transfer target.
Klopp still wants to sign Van Dijk, but has been told by his employers that another move for the 25-year-old is unrealistic and so is prioritising other targets such as RB Leipzig’s Naby Keita.
During the talks between the two clubs before the apology, Southampton made it clear that they would not sell Van Dijk to Liverpool at any price. In addition, Fenway Sports Group, Liverpool’s owner, values its reputation for probity and does not want to be seen to be going back on its word.
Southampton are hopeful that Van Dijk will stay, but Chelsea and Manchester City are also interested in him.
I wonder if this might be a smokescreen. Van Dijk's solid determination to come to us puts Southampton in a clearly worse bargaining position over the fee than they were before they had their hissy fit. Maybe we're turning the screw on them by hinting that we could yet leave them with a disgruntled and depreciating asset on their hands.
You've gotta lay of this one,JJ.
I don't know. Henry comes across as a bit of a milquetoast, but then again he's been a ruthless operator in the past when it's suited him, so maybe that probity line is indeed as ridiculous as it sounds. I still think a new manager will really want to start the season with a good spirit in the squad and no big name problems, so there must be a glimmer of hope.
Mate, I'm quite willing to hold my hands up and say so if I'm persuaded I've misread something, but I haven't seen a convincing argument for that view in this case. Van Dijk is reported to have turned even Chelsea down. That guy wants out of there on a one-way ticket to Anfield and I can't see them getting value for money out of him unless that's what happens.
I'm surprised we backed down so submissively now if they bad insufficient evidence it find any wrong doing. The evidence of the tapping up was all this hinged on and if there's very little then we shouldn't have walked away begging for forgiveness. I think we shit ourselves needlessly because of our youtb transfer ban but if it can't be proved then it didn't happen.
Facts:
- No transfer request
- Long-ass contract
- Considered one of top few CBs in the league
Until one of the above changes , that value wont drop. Re the idea hes poisonous etc, well we will just have to see about that but as things stand , hes absolutely an asset to Southampton
You only need to look at our recent history to see that just about anything could happen. Take the Gerrard, Torres and Suarez transfer sagas. All three were blatantly tapped up, two of them in plain sight on Abramovich's yacht, and we could have reacted like Southampton and reported it. Instead we issued a 'not for sale' statement. Even after Torres put in a transfer request we insisted we wouldn't sell him. And he went. Suarez we delayed a year, issued another 'not for sale' message while we shifted masses of shirts with his name on them - there's probity - and then sold him. VVD will probably go. I just hope FSG realise what a turning point this could be. Do they really want to win things? If so, they need to fight for the key signings, like the mancs or Chelski do. They couldn't care less about a bit of evanescent bad publicity if it means they get their man. It would be nice to rise above such clubs in terms of probity, but if by doing so it means you fall down below them in terms of results, it needs some hard and sober thought. The Premier League is a profoundly amoral universe. You won't cope within it by obsessing over how others see your probity. It depends how much of an impact one thinks this player can make.
... and this is the key.
Do we want to take the next step after getting into CL qualification and become a league challenger, or do we want to just to carry on as we've been doing the last few years.
HC; of course van Dijk is an asset currently, but he's not going to stay that way indefinitely. There's no transfer request because he doesn't want to reduce his cut - his fundamental preference is very clear. It's true that he's on a long contract and I'm not saying we'd get him for peanuts at all, but I am saying Southampton have brought his price down by alienating him as thoroughly as they have, and we should absolutely steam in there and take advantage of that.
Yes, and Klopp evidently thinks he'd make a big one.
Means we can start the tapping up process again.
It could be that we thought it the best tactic if we were to continue our pursuit of VVD. Placate the irate Saints first.
How did Suarez work out for us ? I'd bet if VVD ends up staying another season at Saints he won't exactly down tools.
It depends on more than him, as was the case with Suarez. If Suarez had been linked with a big move to a Champions League team, and LFC proceeded to slump to mid-table by October, I suspect he would have bitten his way out of Britain by January. Similarly with Van Dijk: if he stays and Southampton struggle, as could happen, then I wouldn't expect him to be that committed. Or he could think forward, anticipate that situation, and kick up now.
Well we haven't denied that certain things took place. But with the issue resolved Southampton can't seek to reopen it now
It doesn't take much to confuse me, but surely our apology was an admission of guilt? Seems to me that we escaped lightly here due to lack of evidence and I'm not betting against more evidence emerging should we pursue our interest. I wanted VvD but fear it's now over.
Time to move on now to the next target I think.
Also cant help thinking that Southampton's hissy fit fucked up the bargaining process that they would have been hoping for.
Also cant help thinking that Southampton's hissy fit fucked up the bargaining process that they would have been hoping for.
Yeah, but it was coming out that VvD wanted to come to us and had made his mind up, stymieing any possibility of a proper bidding war. I can understand their chagrin.
Why should it be? Did Southampton compile a dossier on us and then thought, 'Let's just send in a bit of this and hold the rest back in case we want to complain again'? They've had their chance, full of hypocrisy as it was, and they've had their pyrrhic victory. Now if VVD wants to put in a transfer request, all of those teams that have already spoken to him, like Chelsea, City and us, are entitled to put in a bid, and Southampton can either take the highest bid or loftily refuse it in favour of some morally exceptional club, like Brighton, who want to offer a pittance. It's no great puzzle - they can keep him or they can sell him, and if they sell him we can and should bid for him, in spite of FSG's previous self-flagellation.
Southampton are like a greengrocer who's caught a customer squeezing a peach and said, 'Oi, don't squeeze the peaches!' But instead of saying, 'Don't put it back now, you idiot, you'll have to buy it!' They've gone, 'Put it back, say sorry, and leave my shop!' So now they have a squeezed peach on their hands. The fools!
Ha! The Premier League certainly won't want to get dragged into it a second time. If Southampton try it, the Premier League will probably retaliate by having a look at Southampton's activities. I think, behind the scenes, most people were irked by Southampton's antics because they all know it could have a domino effect in terms of scrutiny of many other deals.
I must admit it was your Greengrocer peach analogy that totally swayed me but this post also helped my thinking thank you.
For what it's worth, I actually agree with the first half of your initial post. I think the apology was an admission of *guilt on our part - especially the public withdrawal of interest.
I don't think any more evidence will be found though, I think the apology and withdrawal was made probably because we expected Southampton had more to back up their report than they did.
It's a shame we apologised really, Southampton would look more than a bit silly by this point.
*By guilt, I of course mean that we were up to the same as every other club.
Indeed, I don't think we are any worse at tapping up than the next club, What's sauce for the goose....
Similar threads
-
- Locked
