Lucas

[Scratch]

I suppose...once a player has been granted permission to talk to a club (ie before Hodgson arrived)...can we then turn to the player and stop him talking, or do we have to let things play out till the talks are over, and then we can either refuse the bid or accept (Hodgsons choice...i hope...). So this talk of Purslow running the transfers could just be another stick to beat him with, even tho it may not be so?

[Neil Young]

Yes, Purslow really is the victim here.

[Scratch]

Yes, Purslow really is the victim here.

Where did i say that? I just questioned the whole "Purslow is making the transfers line", but apparantly that doesn't fit into the "Purslow must die" line of thought some of the sheep seem to be following.

[Craig_H]

It's a big ask for Roy to play left back for us for a whole season.

[Neil Young]

Where did i say that? I just questioned the whole "Purslow is making the transfers line", but apparantly that doesn't fit into the "Purslow must die" line of thought some of the sheep seem to be following.

Classy post.

[dww]

I suppose...once a player has been granted permission to talk to a club (ie before Hodgson arrived)...can we then turn to the player and stop him talking, or do we have to let things play out till the talks are over, and then we can either refuse the bid or accept (Hodgsons choice...i hope...). So this talk of Purslow running the transfers could just be another stick to beat him with, even tho it may not be so?

Why give anyone permission to speak to anyone else before appointing a manager if you intend to allow the manager to control transfers on a football basis though? Whether or not it is reasonable to allow players to continue to negotiate (which I agree it is) that doesn't alter the fact that he made the decision to allow them to begin negotiations when we had no manager in place.

[Neil Young]

Why give anyone permission to speak to anyone else before appointing a manager if you intend to allow the manager to control transfers on a football basis though? Whether or not it is reasonable to allow players to continue to negotiate (which I agree it is) that doesn't alter the fact that he made the decision to allow them to begin negotiations when we had no manager in place.

No, you don't get it, Purslow is just misunderstood.

[Craig_H]

I suppose...once a player has been granted permission to talk to a club (ie before Hodgson arrived)...can we then turn to the player and stop him talking, or do we have to let things play out till the talks are over, and then we can either refuse the bid or accept (Hodgsons choice...i hope...). So this talk of Purslow running the transfers could just be another stick to beat him with, even tho it may not be so?

I think and hope you're right here.

If we're giving them the benefit of the doubt, we can say that discussions over Insua and Lucas (and obviously Yossi) began before Hodgson was appointed, so he cant interfere with those deals.

However, having now been put into the job, he should have the authority to decide on future transfer dealings.

[Richey]

Lucas and Insua are not good enough to be first choice.

Yes it would be useful to keep them as some kind of back up but I would imagine that the situation is such that if we didn't sell them we wouldn't be able to afford to have anyone for them to be back up to!!

So if the choice is keep Lucas and Insua as first choice or sell them both and get new first choice players in then I would certainly go for the latter option!

The fuss about Purslow going ahead with the talks (if true I must add) doesn't concern me a great deal either to be honest. We didn't have a manager. We had offers for some of our lesser players. What should have happened?

If it had been Torres and Gerrard I doubt the same situation would have occured

[Scratch]

Why give anyone permission to speak to anyone else before appointing a manager if you intend to allow the manager to control transfers on a football basis though? Whether or not it is reasonable to allow players to continue to negotiate (which I agree it is) that doesn't alter the fact that he made the decision to allow them to begin negotiations when we had no manager in place.

That is a good question, but who knows what negotiations went on between the players and the then management (when was Insua given permission to talk? When Rafa was here or after he left, that bit is not mentioned I think?). Maybe Rafa identified players that would not make the grade, maybe Purslow made the decision himself, maybe Insua asked to leave...all we are told is that Insua was allowed to talk to other clubs, and that happened before Roy was appointed...

[Exiled_red]

I think and hope you're right here.

If we're giving them the benefit of the doubt, we can say that discussions over Insua and Lucas (and obviously Yossi) began before Hodgson was appointed, so he cant interfere with those deals.

However, having now been put into the job, he should have the authority to decide on future transfer dealings.

Roy should at least have the opportunity to discuss with the players involved in transfer discussion whether there would be in his plans were they to stay, then the player can make the decision whether they want to continue with the talks with other clubs or not.

[Scratch]

Classy post.

Cheers...almost as good as constant IAFN comments and tedious bald jokes, innit?

[Scratch]

He should at least have the opportunity to discuss with the players whether there would be in his plans were they to stay, then the player can make the decision whether they want to continue with the talks with other clubs or not.

And he may have done...then the final choice is up to Insua...he's already said he liked the way the lad played...the interesting part will come if the club...Fiorentina??...make a bid...does Hodgson get to refuse it, or will that decision be taken out of his hands?

[Craig_H]

Roy should at least have the opportunity to discuss with the players involved in transfer discussion whether there would be in his plans were they to stay, then the player can make the decision whether they want to continue with the talks with other clubs or not.

Naturally.

What 'should' happen and what 'does' happen at LFC these days, are world apart, sadly.

Much as i dont rate Lucas or Insua as anything more than decent players who should be backup or on the fringe of the first team for us, i still think it'd cost more money and inconvenience to replace them, than we'd get by selling them.

At this stage, unless we got a handsome fee for either, they should both be staying put, at least until our ship has steadied a little.

[red g]

Lucas and Insua for 13million-ish.

that has to be great business if true.

Both squad players at best, and as much as people through youtube clips of the great box to box midfielder at gremio....well its hardly the PL.

Lucas has played 100+ games for liverpool.......and yes he is yong, but then he is average to.

I think both him and insua were overplayed last year and suffered for it. I think it would be better to sell as it would be seen as a positive move by most of the liverpool fans and would give Roy some brownie points too!!