Virgil van Dijk

[Lancet Fluke]

Who actually gives a shit about the fee anyway? IMO we as a fan base have been far too apologetic over our spending since 2008. Constantly arguing over spending £44m for Sterling not £49m as if it makes a difference. We should be owning it, and talking about how we walked up to liverpool and took their best prospect and there's nothing they could do about it. We are possibly the wealthiest club in the world, people are always going to try and asterisk our successes with money anyway, spending 50m on VVD instead of 70m won't change that.

As long as we can stay the right side of FFP and manage to get all our targets, I don't care how much they cost.

I certainly don't give a shit as long as I think the player is worth buying. I hope we pay whatever it takes to get VVD in January because I think he'd make a huge difference to our team and squad. If we paid 80m for VVD I wouldn't give a shit, there's a scarcity of decent options at CB so I'm convinced clubs will be paying fortunes for CBs next summer. But then I'd be disappointed if we spent 30m on Evans because I think it'd be a waste of money. Not because I think Evans is totally shit but I just don't think he'd make a huge difference.

 

[aguero93:20]

What a player is worth can be measured by KPI data.

However, what a selling club asks for & the buying club are willing to pay is a metric that cannot be measured.

It can be judged by KPI data, yes, as long as the values used are relevant to the transfer market itself, which they're ignoring. You don't allocate the same values across different sports for that reason.

 

[Silva_Spell]

For me, Van Dijk is pretty much the perfect modern CB
Tall, strong, monster in the air, mobile, composed on the ball, good passer, and a pretty unique ability to stride into midfield (not unlike Kompany when he was at his best)

There would be 3 alternatives to him, at least in terms of well known CBs

(-/+ compared to VVD)
Alderweireld
+can cover RB
+contract issues could make transfer easier
+probably slightly better long passing ability
-not great in the air
-2 years older than Van Dijk
-Future hamstring problems? (speculation on my part)

Koulibaly
+can play DM
-not great in the air

Laporte
+could cover LB at a push
+leftfooted
+3 years younger
-slower (big issue imo)

- All 3 lack VVD's ability to stride into midfield

 

[nmc]

For me it’s the new Gaz Baz, Liverpool toy with the idea for a couple of windows then we swoop in and get him for less than they were said to be paying........ we go on to win some trophies and they don’t.

When you put it like that.... : )

 

[nmc]

They ask for £70m, It's £70 m, for a defender? No please, rather go for james tarkowski around £20m (burnley dedefender)

That £20m will be £40m by the summer.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

That £20m will be £40m by the summer.

and as proven by Keane, at Burnley it's the system not the player.

 

[Dax777]

Take Kompany out of the equation and we could have a similar CB pool to Bayern currently. Stones is Boateng, good on the ball, regular starter. Van Dijk is Hummels, great in the air, imposing and good from set-pieces. Otamendi is Javi Martinez and Mangala, the backup, is Badstuber. Problem with this is keeping them all happy.

I think in this analogy, Badstuber is actually Kompany. A talented but injury prone player.

 

[Dax777]

Would people rather have Van Dijk or Alderweireld

Van Dink

 

[abu13]

I have a feeling that we could get VVD for less that Liverpool were quoted, it's well known that Southamton were fuming about the way the dippers conducted themselves and if we came in with a bid of over £50 million I am sure it would be considered. It may be that also loan them Tosin.

 

[cjn]

Who actually gives a shit about the fee anyway? IMO we as a fan base have been far too apologetic over our spending since 2008. Constantly arguing over spending £44m for Sterling not £49m as if it makes a difference. We should be owning it, and talking about how we walked up to liverpool and took their best prospect and there's nothing they could do about it. We are possibly the wealthiest club in the world, people are always going to try and asterisk our successes with money anyway, spending 50m on VVD instead of 70m won't change that.

As long as we can stay the right side of FFP and manage to get all our targets, I don't care how much they cost.

Agreed x100. We won't have huge spending needs over the next few years and the fee being quoted isn't even that crazy given the inflation in the market. Oh and by the way, we have Pep f'ing Guardiola as our manager, right now, and for who knows how much longer. These are special times. We can make the team better and people want James Tarkowski instead because he'll be cheaper? Come on now.

 

[taleofbluehalves]

Van Dink

Who’s he? Any good?

 

[Dax777]

It is very odd how so many people don't seem to be able to get their head around how much the market has inflated over the last few years. It's like the bonkers summer this year never happened. Personally, given how few quality CBs who could fit into Pep's system there are about, I'd have thought if we could get VVD for 60m or 70m it would be about par for the course. I know 70m for a CB sounds ludicrous but no more ludicrous than many deals that went through last summer. It's just the way it is. The alternative is to spend less (but still a reasonably large amount) on someone who is relatively shit.

Probably because the market didn't get inflated beyond normal. 10 CBs moved clubs over the summer, none of, them cost over 45 million.

Bonucci, Keane, Rudiger, Skrinnier, Conte, and Lindelof all moved. None broke the 45 million plain.

And for the record, there are lots of CBs who can play on our system. Many. Hence why Inigo Martinez and JFE are viewed as credible options.

Better to hold the position that transfer fees don't matter.

But in a world where people think it does, 70 million for a Southampton defender is beyond excessive.

 

[Dax777]

Who’s he? Any good?

He can dink a ball over the keeper like no other :)

 

[domalino]

Probably because the market didn't get inflated beyond normal. 10 CBs moved clubs over the summer, none of, them cost over 45 million.

Bonucci, Keane, Rudiger, Skrinnier, Conte, and Lindelof all moved. None broke the 45 million plain.

And for the record, there are lots of CBs who can play on our system. Many. Hence why Inigo Martinez and JFE are viewed as credible options.

Better to hold the position that transfer fees don't matter.

But in a world where people think it does, 70 million for a Southampton defender is beyond excessive.

That's a very poor attempt to argue the market didn't not get inflated. Just because no CBs moved for 50+ doesnt mean the market was not inflated, it means that no elite level CBs moved, and they didn't with the exception of Bonucci who was allowed to move cheaply so as to stay in country for his son.

Actually Michael Keane moving for £30m with 10 months on his contract is a great example of inflation.

And let's not forget Liverpool being prepared to pay 70m for Van Dijk and being told to fuck off for non financial reasons.

Regardless of those 2 examplee, no CBs moving for 50+ =/= market not inflating.

 

[cjn]

Probably because the market didn't get inflated beyond normal. 10 CBs moved clubs over the summer, none of, them cost over 45 million.

Bonucci, Keane, Rudiger, Skrinnier, Conte, and Lindelof all moved. None broke the 45 million plain.

I have no idea why you think any of those moves are comparable transactions to VVD. You keep saying it but it isn't true. In order:

• Bonucci - Only wanted to move within Italy, took a cut rate deal to go to Milan. City and Chelsea both would've paid 60mm to get him last summer if he was available to them
• Keane - Four different loans over four years, plays two years at Burnley, moves with 10 months on his contract. Good player but no one thinks he is a top talent
• Rudiger - Played for Roma, attracted Chelsea interest. Was going to move earlier but suffered a knee injury, Chelsea was the only big club coming back for him afterwards
• Conti - Transferred from Atalanta to Milan, not remotely comparable to a transfer between PL clubs
• Lindelof - Benfica sold earlier in the summer to pay for their own moves and raise some cash, finances a total shambles. United were the only destination

 

[blue oli]

He can dink a ball over the keeper like no other :)

Dunnie was the master at this

 

[Bruun]

I have no idea why you think any of those moves are comparable transactions to VVD. You keep saying it but it isn't true. In order:

• Bonucci - Only wanted to move within Italy, took a cut rate deal to go to Milan. City and Chelsea both would've paid 60mm to get him last summer if he was available to them
• Keane - Four different loans over four years, plays two years at Burnley, moves with 10 months on his contract. Good player but no one thinks he is a top talent
• Rudiger - Played for Roma, attracted Chelsea interest. Was going to move earlier but suffered a knee injury, Chelsea was the only big club coming back for him afterwards
• Conti - Transferred from Atalanta to Milan, not remotely comparable to a transfer between PL clubs
• Lindelof - Benfica sold earlier in the summer to pay for their own moves and raise some cash, finances a total shambles. United were the only destination

Conti is a clutch for straws, not Even in the same bracket or position transferwise.

 

[eyalluvitt]

looks good in Blue ,

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Probably because the market didn't get inflated beyond normal. 10 CBs moved clubs over the summer, none of, them cost over 45 million.

Bonucci, Keane, Rudiger, Skrinnier, Conte, and Lindelof all moved. None broke the 45 million plain.

And for the record, there are lots of CBs who can play on our system. Many. Hence why Inigo Martinez and JFE are viewed as credible options.

Better to hold the position that transfer fees don't matter.

But in a world where people think it does, 70 million for a Southampton defender is beyond excessive.

I was going to respond to this but I think other posters have covered it. I'm sure when a top CB goes to a Premier League club he will cost a fortune, particularly if the transfer is between two Prem clubs. I don't know why some people are happy for us to spend pots of cash on attackers and midfielders but see us potentially undermine that by either not bothering buying defenders or if we do buy defenders, go for ones that don't come close to matching the quality we have in other areas of the team. You're only as strong as your weakest link and all that.

 

[Dax777]

That's a very poor attempt to argue the market didn't not get inflated. Just because no CBs moved for 50+ doesnt mean the market was not inflated, it means that no elite level CBs moved, and they didn't with the exception of Bonucci who was allowed to move cheaply so as to stay in country for his son.

Actually Michael Keane moving for £30m with 10 months on his contract is a great example of inflation.

And let's not forget Liverpool being prepared to pay 70m for Van Dijk and being told to fuck off for non financial reasons.

Regardless of those 2 examplee, no CBs moving for 50+ =/= market not inflating.

Well, nothing you said opposes my position.
1. I never said the market didn't get inflated. I said it didn't any more than usual.
2. And that no one moved for over 50 suggest there was no unusual inflation.
3. Lots of top CBs moved. And they didn't cost 50 or more. Not to suggest a player can't move for over 50 million. But that should be the exception, not the rule.
4. If the world best CB wanted to move from one top club to another, Perhaps!

But I'm.sorry Southampton is on no position to be demanding 20 million above the the world record price. That's just silly!