Saints new manager Mauricio Pellegrino has confirmed that the club's position remains unchanged on Virgil Van Dijk.

Mauricio Pellegrino has spoken about how he would still like to see Virgil Van Dijk return to the first team squad, but that moment is not yet right to happen.

“I would like to bring the boy and to persuade him that he’s important for us and the club will not sell him.

“We are expecting the best for everyone, even for Virgil, but he doesn't want to be part of the team.

“This is the reason he is aside from the team.”

Despite the players protests, Pellegrino insists the Saints' position has yet to change.

"We continue in the same way. The situation is the same.

“I can’t say no more, because the situation is the boy is aside of the team because he doesn't want to play for us.”

This means that the stalemate will likely continue with Liverpool not wishing to risk making an approach and being charged by the FA with an illegal approach, that could bring on a transfer embargo on to the Anfield Club and they do not wish that to happen with 4 weeks to go of the transfer window.

So the situation continues with Van Dijk being forced to try and persuade Saints to virtually send a written invitation to Anfield asking them to sign him by behaving like a spoilt brat.

That will not happen and it seems that Saints are prepared not to blink on this one and stand firm.

The saddest thing is that Van Dijk seems to be prepared to risk everything (well apart from his £7 million share of the deal if he doesn't ask for a transfer) to push this through, a position he really should not have been put in by a supposedly caring future employer.

Not least he is jeapordising his Country's World Cup hopes that already stand on a knife edge, they face a trip to France on 31st August in a game that if they lose will all but end their hopes of Qualifying for Russia 2018, especially if a few days later they fail to beat Bulgaria and the French beat Luxembourg at home.

The fact that Van Dijk is not willing to care about his country at a desperate time in his quest to get a big pay day at Liverpool perhaps shows his mindset.

The longer this situation goes on perhaps shows that Saints are better off without a player of this character in their squad, however most Saints supporters would still rather that the club make a stance and show that petulance cannot be allowed to prosper.

The next step will be for Van Dijk to put in a transfer request, but he will be loathe to do this for financial reasons, no matter how much pressure he is put on by his agent and allegedly Liverpool.

In the final week of the transfer window if the stalemate persists then Liverpool might have to take the risk of making a bid, something they are also loathe to do because of the consequences, but until they do how can Saints do anything ?

The most ideal situation for most Saints supporters would be that Saints now go out and sign two Premier Quality central defenders, around £30 million would secure both Kevin Wimmer from Spurs and Wesly Hoedt from Lazio for example and that Van Dijk would be kept at St Mary's till the January transfer window to prove a point.

Saints have the money to do this and need to do it fast to show the supporters that they mean business and are in command of the situation.

Photo: Action Images

Sanguin added 11:27 - Aug 3 Spot on. The admission that van Dijk doesn't want to play for the team is new. This is being overblown in the media though, a number of news outlets are suggesting that van Dijk has said he never wants to play for the team again. I'm not sure where that 'again' has come from.
1

SaintNick added 11:31 - Aug 3 Its chinese whispers, every time a story is put up someone copies it and changes it a little and therefore it easily goes from doesnt want to play at present, to never wants to play again to is ready to petrol bomb the stadium
1

SaintPaulVW added 11:42 - Aug 3 Sorry I only accept my VanDijkgate updates from ex-Liverpool players.
3

highfield49 added 12:40 - Aug 3 I agree Nick, there seems absolutely no alternative but for the club to sign at least one and preferably two experienced central defenders. Absolutely no more "signings for the future" because we don't have any more time to play catch up. I'm now thinking that all of the team's problems stem from the centre of defence where the startled rabbits have spread uncertainty like a plague through the whole squad. It looks like VVD might still be around until January but maybe a loan move to Lazio in exchange for Hoedt might be the way to go? That way we can flog him next year and get rid of his bad influence around the squad in one go.

3

SonicBoom added 12:49 - Aug 3 Not sure why Liverpool can't just make a public bid now. City could. Chelsea could. If they do it the right way now I see no reason why they don't make a bid.
3

SaintBrock added 13:41 - Aug 3 Is the man mad? If van Dyke says he will not play for Saints again how in heaven's name does Pellegrino think he's going to get him to his mind? He's an idiot for putting himself in an impossible position which must rank as rank bad judgement on his part. For a start he has allowed Les to step back and say "Don't worry, Mauricio is handling that!" So, if he cannot deliver the club a contrite van Dyke, Pellegrino has placed his own neck in a noose. van Dyke has decided his future is not here maybe for personal reasons or maybe cause of pure conceit that he believes he is a class above the other players and has no wish to be involved with any of them again. The chances of hauling him back form such entrenched positions is nigh on Zero! Yes, everyone knosw he has signed a contract but one wonders about the legality of holding him here against his will as a form of imprisonment,m contract or no contract and I am sure that point will be tested sooner or later in the courts. This might get very messy indeed and it is not certain we have the bottle to see it through. Sponsors will certainly have their views on matters forward and sure as hell we don't want to be upsetting tham.

-1

SaintBrock added 13:43 - Aug 3 change his mind
0

SaintBrock added 13:45 - Aug 3 Dream the impossible dream?
1

pintsizedsaint added 14:18 - Aug 3 I admire SFC's stance. As Le Tiss put it, clubs like SFC don't have the same financial pressures as they did even 2-3 years ago. As I have said, SFC reached a crossroads this summer and simply cannot afford to allow yet another successive summer of sales. Admittedly, I guess nobody thought the 'boy' (a wonderful term used by MP) would be this stupid; this arrogant. Is it something that Liverpool football club does to SFC targets? Who cares: with the exception of Mane, they haven't exactly seen a decent return on their expenditure - and they are now burdened with a moody Lovern and the fact he's been found out as one of the most expensive 'average' players in EPL at this minute. Perhaps this unsavory incident confirms that Agents control things. Why else would the greedy VVD not hand in a transfer request - if this is his dream move? Saintbrock mentions the legality, but he hasn't handed in his request and SFC have not received a bid. He's refusing to play, which means the law will be on SFC's side regarding non-fulfillment of contract. So I admire the fact that SFC (so far) are standing firm. Is there a way back for VVD? From SFC's perspective, of course - he's a decent player and - after a period of contrition - he could return (he must accept the boos). Yet from VVD's perspective he's probably realised his gone too far. But he's not getting what he wants, and it appears he's that stupid to think SFC will roll over. I suspect that, come 1 Sep, he will at SFC. After that time, I hope for a loan move to another club (preferably outside England) would occur a la Osvaldo and we will await news that the deal has been made permanent. Either way, I agree with Le Tiss that perhaps player power (for the mid ranking players) is on the wane. Only true superstars (and that is a very small circle) can determine themselves bigger than a football club - and VVD is not (and will not be) one of them.

1

SanMarco added 14:22 - Aug 3 What exactly would be 'tested in the courts' SaintBrock? I think contract law would confirm that if you intentionally sign a piece of paper with 'contract' written on the top you can't just change your mind a year later. He would have to prove fraud - "I assumed that SFC would roll over and let me go" is probably not enforceable in law. Also the EPL would love it if all player contracts were rendered void in the courts. I totally agree that he will never play for us again. Unless he puts in a request I would say Nick's solution of sign replacements and let him stew until January is the best of the bad options.

3

Pecky3 added 15:41 - Aug 3 Whilst I admire the stance not to sell Van Dijk, if he will not play for us surely Saints should be buying one or two central defenders NOW before the season starts. The result yesterday seems to indicate that we do need central defenders of Premier League class. If we cannot afford to buy then £60 million would come in handy!
0

Bettwsresident added 15:48 - Aug 3 Minds can change, I can confirm that....I expect VVD to be re-intergrated into the team once we get past the end of this month and his options close off. Please don't boo him when he comes back. We need the imperious VVD of last season, not one that makes mistakes
3

DPeps added 16:08 - Aug 3 As an aside, I'm not sure we can assess footballers' contracts in terms of our experiences of contracts. I have no idea what footballers' contracts look like, but I suspect that these are rather different from the ones we might have signed with employers. It wouldn't surprise me if the contract VVD has signed with us gives him quite a lot of leeway and is much more employee-friendly than typical workplace contracts because he (and other top class footballers) are more valuable commodities than most other types of employee. So the idea of holding him to his contract might not be such a powerful position. Anyway, if someone knows more about this then please contradict me.

0

SanMarco added 16:35 - Aug 3 DPeps: There would have to be something in the contract itself that allowed him to nullify it. A clause saying 'if I ask to leave you have to...whatever' or a 'release clause' on price. My memory from last year is that Les assured us he didn't have the latter. If he had an easy way out contract-wise he would already be long gone.
2

DPeps added 18:29 - Aug 3 SanMarco: thanks, I didn't realise that Les had said that. I suppose I was also making a point to those fans who are suggesting that VVD is in breach of contract and is 'on strike'. I doubt he is actually doing either of these things (for the reasons I mention above), although clearly the whole matter is pretty unpleasant from a moral perspective.
1

bstokesaint added 19:24 - Aug 3 I'm assuming Saints would have been quite savvy with VVD's contract given the previous instances of.. well.. naivety. Failing that we should be looking at hiring a better legal team. I'm really hoping he won't get paid when he's "striking." If any of us fans did that we'd be looking at a P45. Football players really make me sick. They quite literally couldn't give a sh1t about who's financing their lavish and incredibly fortunate lifestyles. The bubble's going to burst soon. Not even Barca can keep up!

1

SaintBrock added 19:24 - Aug 3 Sadly SanMarco people can and do change their minds as circumstances change. It is nigh on impossible to draw up any form of legal document that covers all foreseeable options and vD's contract will be full of holes that can be exploited by ruthless lawyers like any other. Just watch how PSG avoid FFP regulations! e.g; a chap might claim he was suffering from a mild form of insanity when he signed a contract! That by the way was a joke, your honour

1

SaintBrock added 19:26 - Aug 3 "Please don't boo him when he comes back. We need the imperious VVD of last season, not one that makes mistakes" Wishful thinking indeed. He's gone, get used to it!
1

GeordieSaint added 20:15 - Aug 3 We forced him to stay, We forced him to sta aaa yy Virgil van dyke, we forced him to stay Surely that has a ring to it? Give the board a break, Barca can't even keep their second or third best player.
1

bstokesaint added 20:59 - Aug 3 If, and that's a big IF, he does say he will need his own "special" song. If nothing to poke fun without resorting to booing!
0

Blogs 31 bloggers

Derby County Polls