The bid was in May. His contract expires on July 1st. The difference between the initial amounts would be quite large, but there'd be a series of add-ons if an agreement can't be reached. It would probably be in Liverpool's best interests to reach an agreement, if they believe that Ings is going to be a success. Even if he's just restricted to cup starts next season, I still think that he can make a significant impact. He'll know that he's not going to jump straight into the side, he'll probably miss some of the pre-season and he'll want to do prove himself when he gets a chance.
I agree, I just don't know what effect Spurs' bid would have on that. You're more optimistic than quite a few on here then! I'd really like to see him do a job, but it's a big step up.
Oh behave. If they were serious about signing him they'd have spoken to his agent about a Bosman, who's ever heard of a club paying £12m for a player who's contract is about to expire? And there's a ****ing good reason for it, as HE'LL BE OUT OF CONTRACT WHEN THE WINDOW OPENS FFS Levy was trying to be a clever **** only it's blown back in his face like vomit out of a car window.
It gives Burnley something to use. Liverpool might not care, but a tribunal may not agree about it's relevance. It might allow them to stick a few more add-ons into the mix. Time will tell, I guess. He's a hardworking player and he knows where the goal is. He's scored a decent number of goals in the Premier League in his first season, despite having little service or support. I'm not saying that he's going to replace Suarez, but he should offer a decent option from the bench. Levy couldn't lose. He either gets a head start on the bids, which we now know wasn't possible or he gives Burnley a stick for the tribunal. It's cost him nothing, regardless.
As I said above, if the tribunal does take it into account, it could lead to some "interesting" bids in similar situations in the future.
Like others have said, the Spurs bid won't affect the tribunal fee given that once Ings' contract expires, Burnley would not be entitled to any sort of transfer fee anyway. Had they rejected bids of 12m for the past 2 seasons, that would likely have been taken into consideration - but not a bid made a month ago - that they wouldn't have expected to receive anyway. Furthermore, Ings was signed from Bournemotuh and went straight into the first team at Burnley. This is taken into account - his relationship with Burnley was a mutual one where he was not only benefiting from their development and not contributing to their success. Had he been mostly benched or training in the academy, the fee would be higher (as Sturridge's was) - since he hadn't repaid the developmental fees with his actions on the pitch. But since his presence was as a first team player the tribunal fee will be lower than if he was an academy player. And finally, I'm not entirely sure why Spurs made their bid. If it was a month ago, then it probably wasn't to do with us. They didn't have to make any sort of bid, in order to talk to the player. They could have gone straight to his agent as it was his final month of contract. This suggests they didn't actually want him. But if it was to discourage us from paying the tribunal fee, they should have known it wouldn't make an impact. It's odd.
The bid would need to be accepted. And if the bid and negotiations were successful, when would he officially be transferred?
July 1st. Not really relevant, as the point was about talking to his agent, which no English club was allowed to do at the time. Officially...
Thanks but it's not too groundbreaking haha. I think Tobes actually is talking sense for once on this. The bid won't be considered because it's not a plausible one. The key to the Tribunal fee will be what I mentioned - that he's been a first team player for them. When he signed as a youngster, Burnley could have gone about it two ways. They could have considered him not good enough for the immediate first team. This would put him squarely as a player benefiting from their setup, their academy. He would be costing them an initial investment into his development. This investment would not be for the present, as most transfer fees are, but for the future, once he "comes good". This is what the tribunal fees are for. Had he then left without paying off these costs, to a bigger side, THEY would reap the gains from Burnley's initial investment. The other way Burnley could have gone about it (and did), was to consider him a first team player. This essentially puts him as no different to a 27 year old whose contract is for his abilities throughout the duration of that contract. He's no longer developing with the academy. He's no longer a "burden" on the club, he's actively repaying his transfer fee, his initial investment, and doing all the things a footballer normally does. The tribunal will still of course take into consideration the fact that he was inexperienced, Burnley took a risk on giving him playing time, etc. But he's no longer a Sturridge where the club hasn't yet benefited from the investments they've made. One could argue he actually made them a massive profit by helping them get to the Premier League. This is going to be the main point. Of course they will also look at things like previous bids in previous windows, etc. Ones that Bournemouth could have reasonable expected to receive but rejected out of hope that their investment would pay off for more than that bid was worth. There are other factors as well but I think this one is the most important in terms of negotiations at the moment.
But surely he wouldn't be transferred, but rather his contract would expire, he would become a free agent, then he would sign for Tottenham, who would pay Burnley the agreed 12 million in compensation. That's a somewhat different situation to a transfer, as Ings holds all the power. OK, if he was still under contract and it was a transfer Burnley couldn't force him to sign for Tottenham, but they could stop him from moving to Liverpool. Whereas in the current situation, he can sign wherever he wants and Burnley can't do a thing. I'm not sure that this is a conversation you meant to have though.
So the transfer fee wouldn't have meant anything because he'd have been out of contract (I didn't read back so you may not have been arguing otherwise)
It might be different in as far as Ings being allowed to join whoever he wants to, but an amount of money would still have to change hands. It would be compensation and not a fee, but I don't see what relevance it in this situation. And compensation would still have to be paid. I'm not seeing the big distinction between that and a transfer fee. It's essentially semantics. Clubs wouldn't have to agree a financial package with Burnley to transfer Ings, but one would still have to be set.
Again, it could make a huge difference if we're talking compensation based on development costs rather than a transfer fee based on market value.
So not really a free transfer I guess the compensation is that he can't be as bad as Borini and Mario
Danny IngsVerified account @IngsDanny Thanks for your messages. Delighted to be joining #LFC. A special club with great players. I will give everything to be successful. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
