COMMENT: Blame Edwards. Michael Edwards. The rookie sports director at Liverpool. He's the one. He's to blame for the Virgil van Dijk saga...

Oh, aye, of course he is...

If you threw open your dictionary and looked up the definition of scapegoat, there'd be a profile pic of the lad from Southampton staring back at you. Why? Because the more you dig into this farce, the more confusing it gets - and the motives of the main players become all the more baffling.

But first, let's start with Edwards. Y'know, the sports director who saw off RB Leipzig and PSV Eindhoven to convince Dominic Solanke to move north from Chelsea. Yeah, thatDominic Solanke, who's just fired England to a first World Cup final (okay it's the U20s) since '66. Not a bad piece of business for a no-hoper, hey? Seeing off the likes of Ralf Rangnick and RBL to land Solanke's signature? He must know a little something about the game.

But, of course, all that went out the window with last week's apology. On the orders of upon high, it came. Well, from Boston and John W Henry's office. And it was as brief as it was pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Those on the ground in Liverpool were hung out to dry. Edwards. Even Jurgen Klopp. They were truly made scapegoats by an executive looking on from the other side of the world. The statement - and the fallout - had all the hallmarks of management by remote control.

There was no finger pointing in the actual release. But it was made clear to those close to Liverpool that Henry took it upon himself to organise the statement. And he must have known the ramifications for those at the sharp end. The backlash, particularly for Edwards, has been huge. Demands for his sacking have quickly gathered momentum - and from Liverpool's side of the table.

But there's a couple of white elephants sitting in this room.

Firstly, Peter Moores, Liverpool's new chief exec. We haven't heard a peep from him. The charismatic Scouse lad made good in the 'States. You'd think he'd be on the front foot. Showing his face. Throwing some water on the fire. But it's been crickets from the ex-EA president.

And secondly, there's Southampton and the game they're now playing. A game which they - with the help of Henry - chose to take off the rails.

Is it just a coincidence that in the same week Saints had forced a 'confession' from Liverpool that the Premier League gave Lander Sports the all clear to pursue their takeover? What difference would Van Dijk staying make for Southampton's sale price?

Many are also pointing the finger of blame at Van Dijk's mystery agent. It's claimed he, whoever he is, is seeking to move Van Dijk on this summer in order to extract the best possible commission. But if that's the case, then why settle for Liverpool? Why not hold out for a higher bidder?

Oh, and how do we know this? Well, this is what we're getting from Southampton's side of the table. Which for a club insisting they don't wish to lose their biggest asset, are not exactly making it easy for him to stick around.

The Yahoo! story yesterday was staggering. Not so much for the detail it contained, but where the source was coming from. The claims of Van Dijk pushing for a move. Wanting to join Liverpool. Receiving video messages from Klopp. The Dutchman was cast as a real villain. It was Paul Ince and West Ham on steroids. And for all the hand wringing in Boston. The finger pointing on Merseyside. The question, after Saturday's story, should be: Just what is Saints' true motivation?

Yes, they're the aggrieved party. But as much as Henry has hung Edwards out to dry, Saints - via their sources - have left Van Dijk flailing. The claims of wanting to keep hold of the Dutchman just don't wash. It just reads as a cynical PR stunt attempting to hike up his price even higher. There's no way back with Saints support. The club's made sure of that. The claims of meetings with Klopp and wanting to "kick up a fuss" in order to get his transfer. They've really made sure who we should believe is the true culprit in this mess.

So the idea, which has actually been floated from Saints' end, that Van Dijk isn't for sale, is a farce. As much as the Saints faithful are unlikely to welcome him back, how does the defender actually play for a club which has portrayed him as such a traitor?

Give us a break. Clearly, Southampton want to sell. And to the highest bidder. But the takeover has complicated things. And with Van Dijk making it clear he wants to play for Klopp, the initiative had gone to Liverpool. So Saints had the hump. They threatened to go official. And after the academy tapping storm, Henry and FSG bottled it. End of.

Well, not quite. Because Saints still have an unhappy player on their books. Someone they've transformed into a heel. So there's only one solution - sell. But the idea they'll get a compliant Van Dijk, who will simply accept going to the highest bidder borders on the delusional.

Liverpool are still in the mix. Edwards will know this. As will Klopp. However, whether the message can reach Boston before September 1 is another matter altogether.