Liverpool FC Forum

by **In and Out** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:22 pm

Lee J wrote:morcambe and wise have spoken.

by **PabloMedina28** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:32 pm

Dundalk wrote:Luke Young's proposed transfer to Liverpool collapsed today, leaving the full-back facing an uncertain future at Aston Villa. Liverpool had agreed a £2.5m fee with Villa on Tuesday for the former England international but there were suggestions that Young was unable to agree personal terms at Anfield as well as being reluctant to relocate to the north.

The news will come as a disappointment to Liverpool and Villa. Roy Hodgson, the Liverpool manager, was keen to bring in the experienced defender to improve his options at full-back and also increase his quota of home-grown players, while Villa were eager to move on one of their higher earners as they look to reduce their £70m annual wage bill. Young was earning more than £2m a year at Villa and has three years remaining on his contract, with further signing-on fees due over the course of that period.

Liverpool had initially indicated Young would have to lower his demands, which have deterred interest from other clubs this summer, although when Martin O'Neill, the Villa manager, reported earlier in the week that a bid had been accepted it began to look like a deal might go through. That is no longer the case, leaving Young to continue his pre-season training in Portugal with Villa and O'Neill cursing a missed opportunity to free up some money.

The Villa manager has been told he will have to operate within the constraints of a "sell-to-buy" policy this summer, accentuating the need to move on a number of players on the periphery. At the moment, however, Steve Sidwell, Nigel-Reo-Coker, Habib Beye, Curtis Davies, Nicky Shorey and Young all remain Villa players. There has also been no progress with James Milner's situation despite ongoing negotiations between Manchester City and Villa

"The news will come as a disappointment for Liverpool"

will it. Read about this on the offical site, absolutely made up cant believe we even entertained buying him especially at 2.5 mill. Got nothing against the lad, hes just need IMO, We have 2 better and far younger right backs and Carra. We have Carra, Wilson, Johnson and whoever Roy brings in as first team LB. So 4 me its money well saved.

by **RED BEERGOGGLES** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:02 pm

Couldn't be more pleased this is not happening ...well I could but it would mean I would be in Amsterdam with a spliff in my mouth

by **NANNY RED** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:53 pm

RED BEERGOGGLES wrote:Couldn't be more pleased this is not happening ...well I could but it would mean I would be in Amsterdam with a spliff in my mouth

im made up .

by **Benny The Noon** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:02 pm

Delighted we didnt spend money on him

by **RED BEERGOGGLES** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:49 pm

NANNY RED wrote:
RED BEERGOGGLES wrote:Couldn't be more pleased this is not happening ...well I could but it would mean I would be in Amsterdam with a spliff in my mouth

im made up .

I'm completely thrilled Nan

by **bigmick** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:04 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:Kelly is a better player than him already .

You don't like it when people "belittle you", so I'm going to steer well clear of that. Are you being serious though, really

by **Benny The Noon** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:05 pm

Yes i think Kelly is a better player than him . Why mention the "belittling " ?! what use is that in the post ? You want to steer clear of it then dont mention it in the first fecking place .

by **bigmick** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:10 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:Yes i think Kelly is a better player than him . Why mention the "belittling " ?! what use is that in the post ? You want to steer clear of it then dont mention it in the first fecking place .

You see how you get yourself all worked up over absolutely nothing. I was treading as carefully as I possibly could, simply because I know you can be a bit sensitive at times.

If you think Martin Kelly is a better player, today, as of now, than Luke Young, then suffice to say I don't agree

.

by **Benny The Noon** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:13 pm

Your treading nowhere - you know people react to your little snidey digs and you can't resist putting them in - fine disagree with my opinion on Kelly - that I have no problem with and we can just agree to disagree but once again will ask why put in the little snidey dig "belittling " when it has nothing what so ever to do with any post - you keep saying you want to just talk football yet you keep failing to stick to it - So why mention "belittling "

by **Owzat** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:43 pm

Redman in wales wrote:The Premier League will introduce a new quota system from next season which will order clubs to have a 25-man squad limit and no more than 17 players can be over the age of 21 and not home-grown.

The Premier League rules mean that as long as youngsters under the age of 21 have been trained by the clubs then they count as home-grown, such as Cesc Fabregas who joined Arsenal at 16.

I've read this rule a few times and yet it seems like some are struggling to get it like it's rocket science or something.

A squad of up to 25 can be registered including eight homegrown players. Despite popular misconception, this doesn't mean they have to be English or even British or Irish, they just have to have been brought up playing football in this country - and not even very long at that. This is why Arsenal for instance have Fabregas, Djourou, Bendtner, Clichy and Song eligible and I think some others might be too. Why? Because they were here for three years before turning 21, so they don't have to be English

Add to this unlimited players under 21 and the ruling is so full of holes it makes swiss cheese look solid. Please will people stop thinking we need to sign loads of English players, or just using the squad ruling as a justification of signing naff English nobodies. Let the likes of Fulham and villa accumulate joe average English

Re Young. He and Cole would be seen as superb signings if Woy were signing them for Fulham, but we're not Fulham. They are an injury risk signing who could prove great, like the bitters gamble with from time to time from top clubs. And Young would have been an ordinary 31 year old who can play anywhere but is nothing special. If we're going to throw money at a full-back, let's go the whole hog and try and get Warnock back. Fair enough the leprechaun might ask the earth, but I'd rather a worthwhile LB signed for a bit more than an ageing full-back. And was it mick talking up him playing for England? Yeah, like seven times which is nothing considering he has been around a while and caps are not hard to gather if you are any good.

Thankfully he's allegedly turned us down for geographical reasons, sigh of relief (literally just then) and (one more for good measure) perhaps Woy can up his game in the transfer market. If Joe Cole, Luke Young and Stylian Petrov are the sum extent of his aimings then we might well be waving a few clubs above us on our way down.

by **Reg** » Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:46 pm

So is Luke Young now history?

Liverpool FC Forum

Luke young

Who is online