Keane or Gibson would cost around half of VVD. Either would improve us.
Virgiling on the vandijkulous
- Thread starter Skullflower
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
It was reported as £200k, probably £150k base, with 50k in bonuses.
I don't believe for a second that we restructured the wages at the last minute with the offer for vvd.
So I'll take the rest of that article with a huge pinch of salt. If we get him, great, but if not, there are other decent alternatives out there who would still improve us and well
So I'll take the rest of that article with a huge pinch of salt. If we get him, great, but if not, there are other decent alternatives out there who would still improve us and well
I read that, too, but in the Daily Mail. All other sources indicated up to £150,000. At any rate, the rumored offer of £180,000 to van Dijk would be akin to closing your eyes and ears before making a move.
Partly because the U.S sports approach is to factor in the full cost of the contact liability in budgetting....which actually makes alot of sense, and is one of the barriers between cruising along talking about a title challenge and ending up on deaths-door (like Leeds), along with not being massive wankers obv. It has blown US owners minds coming into the premiership and not seeing transfer budgets set to incorporate wage commitments.
I'm not sure if they would since they're in teams which can make them look better than they really are because of the more defensive systems they play. Gibson, especially, since Boro were such a defensive-minded unit. He might fit Man Utd's backline though, because he's played under Karanka, which I suppose is like playing under Mourinho with much, much, much, much cheaper parts.
Anyway - on Van Dijk - does it not concern anyone that he comes from a team that played a very defensive system under Puel and yet when he played this season, his team still managed to concede 23 goals in 21 games? In comparison, when Matip played, we let in 26 goals in 28 games, and that record was 31 goals in about 28.5 games with Lovren. Of course, these numbers themselves don't really mean much, but then, if we consider the context that we play a very much more open system than Southampton do, were forced to change our CB partnership several times due to injuries and the Matip/Cameroun fiasco, play without a defensive midfielder, and use a makeshift leftback, then these numbers do raise a bit of trepidation in me that we're walking into another Southampton trap.
I think the main thing we are attracted to VVD for is that he's a bit like a Hansen or an Agger, in that he's comfortable on the ball from the back. He also offers a threat in the box up front, something Matip struggled with at times. The final point is he's a threat from free kicks, always welcome to have another dead ball specialist.
Although Puel was defensively minded, you could argue it's not a great defence.
What did he say:
'To defend for Liverpool you have to haphazardly allow the ball to bounce in the penalty area, this is only if you have rushed into a rash challenge and completely been made to look foolish 25 yards from goal.... but this is just a small part, also you must watch carefully as the ball breaks free into the 6 yard box from set pieces. Watch. Dont react for sure. Then you must be of concern with your tattoos and hair. This is what it means to defend for Liverpool'
Hahahaha. That just made me properly laugh.
Sorry but in a world where Troy Deeney has a release clause of 25mil then you know you have to spend that bit more on players such as VVD and Salah etc.
His release clause and its relevance to the value or lack thereof of other available potential signings means nothing until someone triggers it. We could put a £500 mill release clause on mignolets head but I don't think it would make him worth that much.
I don't entirely agree. There may not be a direct connection between a player's release clause and his real worth, but the size of any release clause could well affect the likelihood or otherwise of acceptable bids coming in
If that's intended as an answer to my post I'm afraid I don't see its relevance. My point is simply that the higher the release clause a club includes in a player's contract, the less likely they are to receive timewasting bids for him.
Yeah, but that was from prison.
I know you're not a big fan of splurging big money on VD, but City are getting some really good talent (and they'll spend ~100-200 more supposedly) ... I'd rather they sign shite! 🙂
They've spent a lot on shitty CBs the past few seasons. This should be seen as a barometer. And probably as a favor to us.
Only according to the mirror. Wasn't it last week they said the same about us for £50m? Until announced by the player or his agent, its not likely to be true.
Still, he's not worth £60m
When will we ever learn that signing players for exorbitant fees don't necessarily guarantee you success ?
Look at the Galacticos projects. Look at your Chelseas, MU (last season) and Man City.
And then look at Leicester.
Money certainly helps, don't get me wrong - the Real Madrids, the Chelseas and the Man Citys all won titles because they spent shitloads but money ain't everything either.
Sadly, only a few place value on more important qualities such as team spirit, unity, good coaching, players with the right attitude, right players for the right systems etc.
I'd rather we buy players who will fit into our system perfectly and not be held ransom by prima donnas who think they are above any club.
Sent from my iPhone 8 Plus using Tapatalk
Look at the Galacticos projects. Look at your Chelseas, MU (last season) and Man City.
And then look at Leicester.
Money certainly helps, don't get me wrong - the Real Madrids, the Chelseas and the Man Citys all won titles because they spent shitloads but money ain't everything either.
Sadly, only a few place value on more important qualities such as team spirit, unity, good coaching, players with the right attitude, right players for the right systems etc.
I'd rather we buy players who will fit into our system perfectly and not be held ransom by prima donnas who think they are above any club.
Sent from my iPhone 8 Plus using Tapatalk
We shouldnt be paying £50m on a centre back. We're nowhere near that level financially sadly and what budget we do have can be better spent.
We need to have been signing him from Celtic for 11m, but our analytical department seems completely incapable of identifying these players in spite of it being our primary focus to.
We need to have been signing him from Celtic for 11m, but our analytical department seems completely incapable of identifying these players in spite of it being our primary focus to.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
