Liverpool table £2.75m offer to sign Aston Villa's Luke Young

[Torvald Utne]

are we talking about the player who through his commitment to the cause has been Liverpool's most important player of the last 20 years?

 

He'll be motivated this year alright.

 

Oh it'll be nice to see him deigning us fit to play for and possibly earning the 6 figures per week salary.

[Dirk]

Fungus is Stringers bogeyman.

[stringvest]

Fungus is Stringers bogeyman.

 

That because he snot able to see sense.

[stringvest]

Oh it'll be nice to see him deigning us fit to play for and possibly earning the 6 figures per week salary.

 

You're destined for a season of disappointment, fungus. I'd get used to it now if I were you.

[Code]

 

Thats all assuming Hodgson has any intention of developing the kids of course. We'll see.

 

 

 

I`ve said it several times before, Hodgson is not one for playing youth players.

[piscinin]

I`ve said it several times before, Hodgson is not one for playing youth players.

 

I know, he may not have much choice though.

[Code]

He`s been here longer though... He came a year before the deal was made permanent.

 

He was here on loan so even if he had been here 10 years I guess it would matter fuck all.

[Delmar]

I`ve said it several times before, Hodgson is not one for playing youth players.

 

Would you given our first 5 matches? Europa league seems a youth tournament for us, though.

[Torvald Utne]

You're destined for a season of disappointment, fungus. I'd get used to it now if I were you.

 

I'm with pissy, now you're talking nonsense....you said he will be playing in a motivated fashion, I said it would be nice to see and now you're saying I'll be disappointed...which is it?

[Menc]

I think you're trying to be funny there, and if you are it worked. Does bring up the point that we need to raise our "home grown" quotient though and bringing Young in as a backup for that price is a decent enough way to do it for me. I will only be concerned about this signing if it turns out he's been brought in as first choice left back.

 

Not on this occasion. Does Insua count towards our home grown quota given how long he’s been with us?

[zigackly]

He is not.

 

We signed Insua permanantly in August 2007 and to be seen as a homegrown player he has to be registered for 3 years before his 21st birthday which was the 7th of January 2010.

 

He does not meet this criteria so he is not a homegrown player.

 

Are you sure it applies for his birthday and not the season in which he became 21? I ask because he would still have been eligible for club or international U21 teams if he became 21 during the season, so I assume the same sort of logic applies to this rule. I can't be arsed to dig for the exact wording of the rule at the moment, but it's my understanding that Insua did qualify.

[Torvald Utne]

yes, this January I believe he will be a homegrowner. (maybe not, just saw code's post and I don't like messing with him when it comes to factoids, you just never know)

 

(just googled this from an arse forum..)

 

See third comment below. I misunderstood the “under 21″ provision, which is actually applied to anyone who turned 21 after January 1 of the year which the season starts — so, for the upcoming season, that includes anyone who turned 21 after January 1, 2010. Which means that Gibbs, Traore, Walcott, and Vela all qualify as “under 21″ as well. So the good news is that that means that we only have 18 (not 22, as I stated in the previous paragraph) players currently under contract for next season who would count against the 25-player limit, so Wenger can go out and bring in a lot of player without having to worry about who to leave off the 25-player list.

[mickeydocs]

Fucking hell.

 

People's opinions on the player aren't linked to who our manager is or was. Everyone's expectations have been lowered due to how we did last season and our lack of funds to rectify the situation fully. It's not just because we've changed managers.

 

Where did Purslow say Roy had £12m to spend? You've said stuff like this before without backing it up with evidence, and it makes you look foolish.

 

Let's just see what happens by the end of the transfer window before we go crazy. Cole and Jovanovic are better than Riera and Yossi. The fact that we've managed to make a profit there is irrelevant. What's important is improving the squad, and so far, so good. Roy's been here less than a month, so he's still probably in the process of deciding who to keep, and what players to go after. Would you rather he just rushed in to signing the wrong players just so we weren't currently making a profit? I'd rather he took his time, enquired about players, saw who was available and decided who he wanted. He's already said we're still trying to sign more players. What more do you want?

 

I seem to recall when Rafa took over, it was around mid August when he brought in Alonso and Garcia (his first two meaningful signings), seemingly because he it takes time to assess what you have, what is available, and make a decision, not to mention negotiate transfers etc. And again, I don't see how people advocating the signing of an experienced, versatile full back as BACK UP ties in at all to people being happy we've made money in the transfer market! If Roy can improve the squad like he's doing, then what's the problem. I hope he gets money to spend, but the primary factor in deciding things is whether we're signing better players, which, in my opinion, we have so far.

 

If we have still spent fuck all at the start of September, then fair enough, you've got a valid point, but stop the childish hysterics. That's the only thing that's 'fucking embarassing.'

 

Great post. Similarly to Rafa, Roy has to see which of his star players want to stay and which players would like to leave, for Gerrard and Owen all those years ago read Gerrard, Torres, Mascherano.

[Arl arse]

Julian Dicks MKII

[zigackly]

Not on this occasion. Does Insua count towards our home grown quota given how long he’s been with us?

 

My apologies then, I thought you were making a reference to some of the shite French and Spanish squad players we've had in the last ten years on many of whom Young would be an improvement I reckon. I answered the Insua bit to Code. I believe he does qualify as home grown at the club.

[Faustus]

I don't think he'd be that bad a signing. It's not like he'd be coming in to be first choice. He's nothing spectacular, but he's solid enough and could even do a job on the left hand side if need be. He'd also add to the home grown quota.

[stringvest]

Radio 5 is reporting that the offer for Young has been accepted by O'Neill and it's now down to personal terms. He might need to have another chat with Hodgson, in which case his decision might not be clear until the weekend at the earliest.

[stringvest]

I'm with pissy, now you're talking nonsense....you said he will be playing in a motivated fashion, I said it would be nice to see and now you're saying I'll be disappointed...which is it?

 

Whatever you want. I believe Gerrard will play really well this season. It's up to you how you react to that.

[Menc]

My apologies then, I thought you were making a reference to some of the shite French and Spanish squad players we've had in the last ten years on many of whom Young would be an improvement I reckon. I answered the Insua bit to Code. I believe he does qualify as home grown at the club.

 

Ha, your assumption was a fair one. We have without a doubt bought a dreadful amount of shit from those leagues over the last few years, I just don’t think repeating the trend is a wise move.

 

The good thing that Benitez’s cheap-but-bad signings had about them was that we usually moved them on for a bit of a profit. That’s not something we’ll manage to do with 31 year old Luke Young. Selling bad but 21 years old Insua and replacing him with bad and 31 years old Luke Young does not make any sense to me.

 

I recognise the need for home grown players but there’s surely a better way to do it than buying poor players to use up a squad number? I’d like to think that for this kind of money we could get somebody of the level of Arbeloa again from abroad.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Menc

[Joe Le Taxi]

Fucking hell.

 

People's opinions on the player aren't linked to who our manager is or was. Everyone's expectations have been lowered due to how we did last season and our lack of funds to rectify the situation fully. It's not just because we've changed managers.

 

Where did Purslow say Roy had £12m to spend? You've said stuff like this before without backing it up with evidence, and it makes you look foolish.

 

Let's just see what happens by the end of the transfer window before we go crazy. Cole and Jovanovic are better than Riera and Yossi. The fact that we've managed to make a profit there is irrelevant. What's important is improving the squad, and so far, so good. Roy's been here less than a month, so he's still probably in the process of deciding who to keep, and what players to go after. Would you rather he just rushed in to signing the wrong players just so we weren't currently making a profit? I'd rather he took his time, enquired about players, saw who was available and decided who he wanted. He's already said we're still trying to sign more players. What more do you want?

 

I seem to recall when Rafa took over, it was around mid August when he brought in Alonso and Garcia (his first two meaningful signings), seemingly because he it takes time to assess what you have, what is available, and make a decision, not to mention negotiate transfers etc. And again, I don't see how people advocating the signing of an experienced, versatile full back as BACK UP ties in at all to people being happy we've made money in the transfer market! If Roy can improve the squad like he's doing, then what's the problem. I hope he gets money to spend, but the primary factor in deciding things is whether we're signing better players, which, in my opinion, we have so far.

 

If we have still spent fuck all at the start of September, then fair enough, you've got a valid point, but stop the childish hysterics. That's the only thing that's 'fucking embarassing.'

 

Only just saw this.

 

Firstly, the lack of funds didn't happen overnight mate. Look at our dealings in the past few windows and you will find we have made a profit in most of them. The lowered expectations comment also referred to the players we look at as well as where we aim to finish. It also has a lot to do with the manager. Rafa completed two signings before he left; Jovanovic and Shelvey and he set the wheels in motion for Wilson. Roy has brought in Joe Cole to the club and for that he deserves praise. However, Luke Young would be an awful buy. One of the main points for this transfer is that we're getting rid of Degen in the process of buying Young. People hail this as a good buy yet didn't Degen come to the club on a free transfer as back up? Now it looks like we're spending money, something that we lack, on more back up.

 

The Purslow money point I read in an article ages ago by Rory Smith of the Telegraph. You can find the article here. As for the evidence that I lack, I assume you mean my post on Purslow which Dave took down? I don't want to get into another discussion on that but I stand buy on most of what I said. I learned a few more things since then but I don't want to drag that up again.

 

"The fact that we've managed to make a profit there is irrelevant." As far as I am concerned, it is. It shows that we are unwilling to re-invest the money we make from sales into the squad. I do admit Jovanovic (from what I have seen which is very limited) and Joe Cole are better options than Riera and Yossi but wouldn't you like to see us build on that with money invested into the squad? Read the article by Rory Smith mate, he said that Roy would be given £12 million. Now seeing as Purslow is the "managing director" it would be his job to give Roy the funds. So where are they?

 

As for what I want, I want to see the club move in the right direction. I want to see Roy being able to spend money on players which he was promised. I want to see the squad re-shaped with new additions in both attack and defence who are an improvement on what we have or had. As far as I am concerned, Young is not an improvement on Insua (if he still goes that is).

 

Rafa may of brought in his transfers late, but our season has started much earlier than anticipated and I would prefer us to have all our signings done before the first league game of the season. But to Young again, he isn't versatile. He wants to be at right back and according to that Villa forum that someone posted on one of the first few pages said, he fell out with O'Neil because he wanted to play at right back rather than left back. We have someone who can become as good if not better than Young in Kelly don't you think? We don't need a back up right back, we need a back up and first choice left back if Insua goes. If he stays and we sign Young, what will be the point in that? What if Roy cut off this deal, kept Insua and made him back up and bought in a good left back with a chunk of this £12 million? Wouldn't that be better than scrapping the barrel for a 31 year old to be a back up right back who moans when put on the left?

 

Finally, how am I the one being embarrassing? I am going by what has happened so far. In my eyes, that is a lack of investment in the first team squad.

[waddy78]

Does anyone think that Roy might play 4-4-2 and use Glen Johnson as a right midfielder with young playing right back ? i think Johnson would make a decent right mid he sometimes struggles defence wise would also save us £10-15 mill we dont have on a winger

[Delmar]

Radio 5 is reporting that the offer for Young has been accepted by O'Neill and it's now down to personal terms. He might need to have another chat with Hodgson, in which case his decision might not be clear until the weekend at the earliest.

 

I'd prefer the indecision on the part of the player to linger on for a few more weeks.

[Torvald Utne]

Whatever you want. I believe Gerrard will play really well this season. It's up to you how you react to that.

 

I'll be over the moon, he's top 5 in the world when on his game.

[Code]

Are you sure it applies for his birthday and not the season in which he became 21? I ask because he would still have been eligible for club or international U21 teams if he became 21 during the season, so I assume the same sort of logic applies to this rule. I can't be arsed to dig for the exact wording of the rule at the moment, but it's my understanding that Insua did qualify.

 

He would not beaccording to what I read earlier, so I did a little search and now i found this, so not really sure anymore, but I thought he did not.

 

Premier League football news from the Barclays Premier League | Home-grown quota for Premier League

[zigackly]

Ha, your assumption was a fair one. We have without a doubt bought a dreadful amount of shit from those leagues over the last few years, I just don’t think repeating the trend is a wise move.

 

The good thing that Benitez’s cheap-but-bad signings had about them was that we usually moved them on for a bit of a profit. That’s not something we’ll manage to do with 31 year old Luke Young. Selling bad but 21 years old Insua and replacing him with bad and 31 years old Luke Young does not make any sense to me.

 

I recognise the need for home grown players but there’s surely a better way to do it than buying poot players to use up a squad number? I’d like to think that for this kind of money we could get somebody of the level of Arbeloa again from abroad.

 

Well the way to do it in the long term is to grow more ideally, but that takes time and is always a bit of a lucky dip. I don't think Young is by any means shit and he can fill a hole by covering both sides until we have a youngster to do it, hopefully Kelly and soon. Arbeloa was a very cheap deal I reckon. I don't think Young is as good as Arbeloa but then Arbeloa hopefully played a fair bit more than Young will. Could we find another Bob? Bit of a gamble for me. More of one than this signing, but I can see where you're coming from.