Report: Liverpool ready to increase their pursuit of the £52 million reported Spurs target.

Liverpool is reportedly planning a bid for Goncalo Inacio, a center-back for Sporting Lisbon who is also reportedly being watched by Tottenham Hotspur ahead of the January transfer window, according to TEAMtalk.

Spurs are reportedly targeting a number of names as potential centre backs in January, according to reports that have been circulating for the past month (GiveMeSport).

Ange Postecoglou’s team has a number of candidates on their short list for central defence, including Inacio, Marc Guehi, Jarrad Branthwaite, Malick Thiaw, and Morato of Sporting Lisbon, according to a report published in The Daily Mail earlier this week.

Over the past few years, the 22-year-old has emerged as one of the greatest centre backs in the Primeira Liga, and in the last few months, he has proven to be a regular starter for the Portuguese national team.

When summer addition Micky van de Ven was sidelined until the new year due to a catastrophic hamstring injury sustained during Tottenham Hotspur Stadium’s 4-1 loss to Chelsea earlier this month, it dealt a severe blow to the team’s defence.

Liverpool is considering Inacio.

According to TEAMtalk, Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp has his sights set on Sporting defender Virgil van Dijk as a potential new defensive partner.

The source adds that Inacio is willing to transfer to Anfield in January and that the Reds have been watching him intently for a few years.

It is clarified, nevertheless, that Sporting does not want to lose the defender midway through the campaign, and that any interested teams would need to pay his £52 million release clause in order to approve his departure.

Spurs Online Views

We signed Micky van de Ven before Liverpool did, and I’m sure the Reds would prefer to prevent a repeat of that in January. They should promptly fulfil the defender’s release clause, in my opinion.

After pushing the North Londoners to the brink of a deal for Pedro Porro last year, Tottenham are all too aware that Sporting is willing to stick to their guns when it comes to a player’s worth.

More news…….

FSG should think about Liverpool making a U-turn after opposing Chelsea and Man City.

Owner of Liverpool, FSG, may have to take the ‘can’t beat them, join them’ tack after a recent Premier League match saw it lose to several of its rivals.

Everton, Liverpool’s local rival, was given a 10-point deduction during the international break for violating the Premier League’s profit and sustainability regulations. The club has already declared that it will challenge the decision.

It is possible that tens of thousands of supporters will be carrying signs calling for the Premier League to be ‘corrupt’ on Sunday when it plays its first match since the scandal surfaced (via talkSPORT).

It was quite unexpected to hear that the club agreed this week at a league meeting to continue a contentious practise, given the events at Goodison Park. The 20 clubs in the competition were asked if they supported a temporary restriction on “related-party loans,” or transfers between teams that share owners. However, the motion only needed 14 votes to pass, even though 12 teams supported it.

It’s important to emphasise that, should one of these transactions take place in January, there won’t be anything “corrupt” about it because it complies with all legal requirements. But when you witness a deal between two clubs connected in this way, you may definitely doubt sporting integrity.

It is no accident that five of the eight clubs who opposed the proposal are already a part of official multi-club networks (Manchester City and Sheffield United) or informal ones (Chelsea, Newcastle, and Nottingham Forest), and two more could join soon. Standard Liege in Belgium and Genoa in Italy are already under the ownership of possible owners Everton 777 Partners, according to The Athletic, who are now ‘exploring potential partner clubs’ at Burnley.

It is becoming more and more obvious that the current trend will continue unchecked if Premier League teams remain in control of multi-club models, which are rapidly expanding. Therefore, if the ban had been implemented, it would have had symbolic significance as a step towards restricting their reach.

The owner of Liverpool, FSG, is left with two options: either accept that change may be inevitable and start actively seeking out other teams to join so that it can reallocate its footballing assets, or stick to its principles, albeit probably in vain.

If it waits too long, it can find itself in a position where it falls behind its rivals by years in terms of model sophistication or where it doesn’t profit from talent development and income. It’s a cynical attitude, to be sure, but maybe it’s time to admit that you have to join them since you can’t beat them.