Liverpool Transfer Rumors: Reds Should Up Bid for Blackpool's Tom Ince
Is Liverpool really prepared to go through January with Daniel Sturridge as the team's only major addition?
While it seems highly possible, it doesn't have to be that way. The team has its eyes on talented winger Tom Ince, a youngster with a very bright future. And all the Reds need to do to land him is offer a bit more more money to Blackpool, it would seem.
Liverpool's long-running bid for England Under 21 international Tom Ince, from Blackpool, is a game of who blinks first.
They will not raise their offer beyond £4 million, but Blackpool are holding out for £6 million.
So why can't the teams compromise at £5 million? That seems logical, even obvious, right?
Ince has been spectacular for Blackpool in the Championship thus far, with 13 goals and 10 assists in 25 appearances. Just 20 years old, Ince would not only offer the Reds a dangerous player for the future, but should compete for playing time in Liverpool's attacking trio right now.
Ince combines good pace, a playmaker's flair and a nasty left foot, making him potentially effective on either wing. But don't take my word for it—have a look at his highlights this season.
Given his goalscoring proficiency this season, he may even fancy himself a central player in the future, a la Theo Walcott.
Should the Reds bend and spend a bit more cash to land Ince?
While the addition of Sturridge is a nice one for Liverpool, I think the team would still be wise to add another threatening player in the attack. And Ince would be coming for a fairly competitive price, especially given just how good he's been this season.
Yes, yes, I know, he plays a level down, and it remains to be seen how he'll handle himself in the Premier League. But Ince doesn't need to star immediately for Liverpool for this to be a smart signing—consider it an investment in the team's future.
Given the chance to develop in the EPL—assuming he doesn't shine immediately—I think Ince will be a nice player. The Reds shouldn't hold too firm a line on that £4 million valuation—the team might regret not being a little more flexible on this one.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?