Shame the tribunal only takes development costs into account and not bids then
BTW the plan you're suggesting for Trippier also amounts to fraud so for their own sake they should be glad it won't work
Danny Ings: Liverpool sign Burnley striker
- Thread starter luvgonzo
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Shame the tribunal only takes development costs into account and not bids then
BTW the plan you're suggesting for Trippier also amounts to fraud so for their own sake they should be glad it won't work
Like FIFA's corruption....its the affrontary of it as well.
As if we wouldn't all smell a giant ****ing fish when Levy of all people, penny pinching **** that he is, is bidding £12m for a player that is eligible for a Bosman in 2 weeks time. Especially when the world and his dog know that he has already agreed a pre contract with Liverpool
As if we wouldn't all smell a giant ****ing fish when Levy of all people, penny pinching **** that he is, is bidding £12m for a player that is eligible for a Bosman in 2 weeks time. Especially when the world and his dog know that he has already agreed a pre contract with Liverpool
That was probably the carrot on the stick that Burnley dangled in front of Levy.
My only doubt is why this bid would affect the compensation Burnley are due.
The compensation is for Ings training and development costs over the years, I fail to see how a pathetic, thinly veiled attempt to add to his market value will have any bearing on what Burnley paid to train the youngster, and therefore, if the tribunal has any sense, they will see this bid for what it is and won't let it affect their ruling.
However....we all know that football governing bodies can be immensely ****ing ******ed at times and as PnP said, Spurs and Burnley have nothing to lose (except some respect from rival fans, which only our manager seems to gives a **** about anyway) and everything to gain. So I can see why the did it.
But, as someone has already mentioned, that might set a dangerous precedent in clubs offering favours to other clubs by doping their young players values as they reach the end of their contracts, in order to get more compo out of the players new club, which I dont see would be a good thing, even if it IS Liverpool getting ripped off by it
They also take into account any valid sell on fee the club could have expected had the player not run his contract out. If Ings had decided to go to Spurs they would have been expected to pay the amount that had been accepted.
Thats the part I wasn't clear on, whether that would factor in. How do you know this?
The regulations set out that the following cost can be included in determining compensation:
Any cost incurred by either Club in operating a Football Academy or Centre of Excellence including (without limitation) the cost of providing for players attending thereat:
Living accommodation;
Training and playing facilities;
Scouting, coaching, administrative and other staff;
Education and welfare requirements;
Playing and training strip and other clothing;
Medical and first aid facilities;
Friendly and competitive matches and overseas tours;
Any other cost incurred by either Club directly or indirectly attributable to the training and development of players including any fee referred to in Regulation.
[HASHTAG]#reality[/HASHTAG]
The desperate bitterness of rivals over Milner and Ings is delicious
Because whereas I quote the actual regulations, he quotes his [HASHTAG]#bitter[/HASHTAG] hopes
Read an article on either Sky or ESPN about 2 weeks ago, it went into a lot of detail
Is this the one you mean? http://www1.skysports.com/football/...ool-have-to-pay-a-fee-for-the-burnley-striker
Read an article on either Sky or ESPN about 2 weeks ago, it went into a lot of detail
The one that didn't even understand players are allowed speak to clubs in the last six months of their contract rather than the day after it ends so spent 4 paragraphs wrongly arguing it would give Spurs a lead?
The one that didn't even understand players are allowed speak to clubs in the last six months of their contract rather than the day after it ends so spent 4 paragraphs wrongly arguing it would give Spurs a lead?
Which one was that?
Everything written by Andy "the fail" Burton
No idea what you are on about, go have a think and a trawl then come back
No idea what you are on about, go have a think and a trawl then come back
Found your source yet?
What was that site that had Liverpool as 5th most expensive squad by the way?
Not looked and don`t intend to, the internet is free for all to trawl
[HASHTAG]#meltdown[/HASHTAG]