Garry88

Missing John Fleck

Don't understand why people are saying that Pedro is a left winger when has played on the right wing far more than the left this season, and even last. Even if you consider Pedro to be better on the left he has scored 17 goals this season from the right wing, on top of his assists.

For Barca, Xavi is their most important player, however I'd say for Spain Iniesta is more important. I think this is because the 4-2-3-1 that Spain play only really has 4 players creating, with only really the two wide players having complete freedom to roam. Whereas at barca they constantly have at least 5 players free to go where they like, all looking to create chances for each other, so having Xavi orchestrating this is more important than the extra movement and creativity that Iniesta has (though I know how ludicrous it is to claim someone is more creative than Xavi given how many assists he gets). For me part of the reason that Iniesta doesn't look as good without Xavi is that he takes over the role of controlling the midfield (which admittedly Xavi is better at), but he doesn't then have an Iniesta moving into the space and stretching the midfield that Xavi would have. Likewise I don't think that Xavi would be as effective if playing in Iniesta's role. To chose 1 as better than the other can only come down to opinion. I prefer Iniesta, as he is simply a joy to watch, doing things that even some of the best players in the world couldn't dream of, and because he is so incredibly versatile, having played in every position in midfield and attack at some point in his career.

He still had a few years on his contract, but barca agreed to release him as he wanted to leave. Could be a great player in time.

In my opinion, there's no way he will be valued at less than 7 million. He counts as homegrown in the new 25 man squad rules, which will automatically add about 2 million onto his value. Plus he is under 23, so even if he doesn't sign a new contract, as long as city offer him one on equal or better terms, then any team signing him will have to pay compensation. If that is an english team, then it could easily be upwards of 8 million. Look at how much city got for Sturridge (about 9 million), and Weiss has played in a world cup, will have champions league experience by the end of the season, and hasn't played an awful lot less than sturridge had in the EPL. In saying that, we wouldn't have to pay anywhere near that level of compensation, so if he falls in love with the club, then you never know what might happen in two years time.

It won't really affect the likes of Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal, as this rule (or at least a very similar one) already exists for the Champions League. It's going to be a shock for Man City having 10+ players, on large wages, in their squad that aren't eligible to play in the league, but then again, they probably won't notice the money they're losing. It will either encourage teams to bring through a young player rather than going out and buying someone new, or simply increase the values of English trained players even higher than they are currently.

I'd rather Ness was given the chance to take Thomson's place. I don't expect him to come in and play every game this season, but I think he has much more potential than McArthur, and we don't need to pay a transfer fee.

While in many ways I agree with you, neither Pedro or Busquets had much game time before the age of 21, and just a year later they are in the spain squad at the world cup ahead of the likes of Cazorla and Senna.

I'd say in terms of man management then he might be in the top 15 or so, but in terms of tactics, and the development of players he is nowhere near that. Not even top 50 for those things.

I agree with Ozblue. I think we should give him one more chance to sign a contract, and make it a decent offer this time, not the £1,200 reported. If we offer him £5000 a week (which is less than we offered Broadfoot), and put some sort of clause in that if someone comes in for him in the first year of the contract then we have to let him go for £5million, then I can't see him turning it down unless something has gone on in the background. I'd rather spend £260,000 over a year and be guaranteed a decent fee for him, than possibly lose him for a fraction of his worth.

At 23 english clubs would have to pay compensation, which could be anything up to £8million to sign him, whereas clubs outwith the English FA don't need to pay this compensation.

Just thought we should clarify the confusion fuelled by the papers over how the homegrown rule would affect Wilson's supposed transfer to Liverpool. "The definition of a home-grown player according to the Premier League is a player that has been trained for three years under the age of 21 by somebody within the English and Welsh professional system. Effectively, this new quota is not a foreign player limitation. There is nothing to stop a side fielding a team consisting of no English players, providing some of the foreign players were purchased from the age of 18." Read more at Suite101: Premier League Introduces Player Quotas: New Squad Rules to Start Next Season http://english-premier-league.suite101.com/article.cfm/premier_league_introduces_player_quotas#ixzz0pLJIjdsD This means that if Wilson or any other player is signed by an english (or welsh) club before their 19th birthday, then three years down the line they will count as homegrown for the purposes of the rule. This seemed to be the advantage talked about in the papers for Liverpool to sign Wilson now, rather than next year, and now they're claiming that that he won't count. They're right that straight away he will not be homegrown, but as he doesn't have to be included in the 25 man squad until he is over 21 (by which point he will be homegrown), this hardly seems relevent. Anyway, I have no idea whether Liverpool are still pursuing Wilson, but I do know that the reason stated in the papers as to why they may have been put off is bullsh:t, and that Rangers are quite right to ask for a large fee given the advantage an english team would have by signing him now rather than any time after the end of this window.

I always thought that Shinnie could be a great player, but had started to give up hope seeing as he didn't seem to be getting near the first team. Hopefully Wilson's right, and Walter gives him a chance, but I certainly wouldn't put money on that.

That article doesn't make any sense. If he is signed this summer, then three years later he will count as a homegrown player, which is why we were told they wanted him now rather than next year. Just sounds like the rags are trying to think of an excuse as to why their "swoop" hasn't come off.

No we wouldn't. England & Scotland have different FA's so we wouldn't be entitled to any development fee/compensation if he moved under freedom of contract. Motherwell took advantage of this rule to sign Chris Porter, Giles Coke & the Humphery's boy that plays on the wing for them. Fair enough, my bad.