There was a point when Celtic almost parted ways with Virgil van Dijk for only £3million.
That's according to Neil Warnock, who has recalled trying to lure the Dutch defender down south while he was manager of Crystal Palace.
Van Dijk departed Celtic after two seasons in 2015 as he joined Southampton on a five-year deal for a fee widely reported to be around £11million.
Warnock, 75, had a short stint at Palace the year earlier and even sent a scout up to Scotland to cast an eye on Van Dijk in the hope he could tempt him to Selhurst Park.
But after coming to the conclusion that the centre-back was the man he wanted, Warnock was advised by chairman Steve Parish that Van Dijk wasn't quick enough for the English Premier League and to look for alternatives.
Speaking on the No Tippy Tappy Football Podcast, the iconic EFL manager revealed Van Dijk, who has went on to make over 300 appearances for Liverpool and won several major honours, even acknowledged the transfer rejection when they met several seasons later.
He said: “Van Dijk was at Celtic and I nearly signed him to Crystal Palace for £3million. When he was there I sent someone up to watch him play and he came back and said ‘he’ll do for us!’.
READ MORE: Celtic 'target' Aston Villa goalkeeper but face EFL competition
“I said to Steve Parish, who’s still at Palace now, and the stats man that I want to sign Van Dijk for three million pounds. Parish, as with many of the other chairmen, rely on the stats man and he was saying that he didn’t think he was quick enough for the Premier League.
“I told them why he doesn’t look quick, because he reads the game so well that he doesn’t have to break a sweat! I told them that if he was pushed in the Premier League, he’d sprint.
"We didn’t end up signing him and Southampton picked him up for four or five million and ended up getting 70 odd million for him when Liverpool signed him.
“I remember when we played Liverpool next, Van Dijk came up to me and said, ‘you nearly signed me!’ – he knew all about it. I said to him, ‘they told me you weren’t quick, you’re not really quick, are you?’ – and then I ran away from him!”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel