TALK about coming out with guns blazing. Now football transfers its gaze from the pitch to the transfer market, Southampton have set out an early marker: they will not be moved.

It takes chutzpah to report a rival club to the Premier League for “tapping up” but that is exactly what they did, after discovering that former Celtic man Virgil Van Dijk met Jurgen Klopp and agreed personal terms with Liverpool, all without Southampton’s permission.

They are certainly correct: Premier League rules have been broken. Players who are under contract can only be approached in a six-week period before they become free agents or if given permission. And this doesn’t just apply to clubs – it applies to agents and intermediaries acting on behalf of that club.

As rules go, it is clearly outdated. It is hard for a club to insist a player is not for sale if they then give him permission to speak to other teams. And so what tends to happen is that they pretend not to notice when their player’s agents speak to rival clubs or intermediaries.

Why? Because most likely they have done the same thing many times over; because it is generally a good idea to maintain a good relationship with other clubs and agents; because it is extremely difficult to prove unless you live in a police state; and because, ultimately, it doesn’t really matter. If the player is under contract, the buying club still need to agree a price.

It is an open secret that Van Dijk is being pursued not just by Liverpool, but by Chelsea and Manchester City as well. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that nobody is going to formally bid for him unless they have a clear idea of how much he is earning now and what sort of contract he would expect at his new club. And there is only one way to find that out.

So what made Southampton so livid, specifically towards Liverpool?

Reportedly, it was the openness and lack of discretion with which this was done, the fact that (after Rickie Lambert, Nathaniel Clyne, Said Mane, Adam Lallana and Dejan Lovren) they didn’t want to lose a sixth player to Anfield in three seasons and their belief that somehow Liverpool were going to pressure Van Dijk into “kicking up a fuss” to get his move. You can probably add a fourth, decisive factor: they felt they had more than enough evidence to make a case against Liverpool. And, perhaps, a fifth: they knew Liverpool were going to haggle and try to get a better deal than Chelsea or City.

That is what leaves a sour taste here, at least for some. Liverpool are being booted out of the Southampton bazaar because they can’t (or won’t) match whatever offer City or Chelsea might put on the table. And technically, Southampton are justified.

After all, they signed Van Dijk for £13 million in the summer of 2015 and gave him a five-year contract. Nine months later, he got a hefty pay rise and committed to a six-year deal through to 2022. Contracts work both ways. Van Dijk hasn’t played competitive football since January, when he suffered a season-ending injury. If he returns with his abilities diminished, Southampton are still on the hook for him for another five years.

Van Dijk might argue he has been so seduced by Klopp he is willing to take less money to be a Liverpool player than he could earn at City or Chelsea. And, therefore, he is not being greedy. In fact, it is Southampton who are denying him his right to choose his employer.

But the reality is he forfeited that right when he signed his six-year deal 13 months ago.

In the backdrop to all this is Van Dijk’s valuation which, according to reports, is north of £50m. That is a frankly extraordinary price for a guy who turns 26 next month, has all of 12 international caps and is coming off a serious injury. Van Dijk is obviously a fine defender, but we are talking a world-record fee for a defender here.

Southampton have blown this wide open by calling out Liverpool. And they are taking a gamble too, particularly if City or Chelsea decide to look elsewhere. To paraphrase Billy Joel, they’re going to walk away fools or kings.

BASIC rules of business suggest that if you want to get the best possible price for something, it is in your interest to make it appear as valuable as you can. So why did Chelsea boss Antonio Conte tell – via text, no less – Diego Costa that he was no longer in his plans?

On the surface, it makes no sense. If you are no longer needed, your value nosedives, right?

And why would you want to depress the value of an asset who, while not being everyone’s cup of tea, scored 20 league goals last season and was an integral part in Chelsea’s title run?

The impression here is that Conte pulled a bit of a power play of his own, without the club’s blessing. He

wanted to help push Costa out the door, so the club would step up its efforts to sign the top-drawer centre-forward he craves (Romelu Lukaku, most likely). What he wanted to avoid at all costs was for the situation to drag on until August and risk a scenario where Costa scores a few goals, the Lukaku deal breaks down and the club say: “Hey, why don’t you give it another go with Diego next year?”

In other words, it is a straight power play. And it is the sort of move which could end up costing Chelsea financially. Selling him to China is no longer the golden option it once was, mainly due to the Chinese government’s capital controls and dampening of football clubs’ spending.

A return to Atletico Madrid (which, because these things are always connected), might have made Antoine Griezmann’s move to Manchester United viable, is also not an option because of the Spanish club’s transfer embargo. And it is hard to see him

moving to another Premier League club.

There may be a few other options in Spain or Italy (Milan have shown a strong interest, but they would need to shift Carlos Bacca first) though that would likely involve a discounted fee. Conte’s angst over the transfer window – he doesn’t want a repeat of last year, where other than N’Golo Kante, he either got last-ditch signings or guys who did not work out – has caused him to make a mis-step. How major, and how expensive, remains to be seen.