Danny Ings tribunal fee could be “the biggest in history” – Burnley CEO

on 18.03.2016


Burnley chief executive Dave Baldwin has explained why Danny Ings‘ tribunal is yet to be resolved, with the club expecting a record fee for the striker.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND - Sunday, September 20, 2015: Liverpool's Danny Ings looks dejected after the 1-1 draw with Norwich City during the Premier League match at Anfield. (Pic by David Rawcliffe/Propaganda)

Ings joined Liverpool on a free transfer last summer, but as he is under the age of 24, Burnley are entitled to a compensation fee for their role in his development.

But close to a year since his move, a fee is yet to be set for Ings, despite several opportunities to conclude a tribunal.

Speaking to BBC Radio Lancashire, Baldwin said this is because Burnley are looking for this valuation to be “the biggest in history.”

“The reason it is different to the ordinary is this tribunal claim will be the biggest in history,” he said.

“The key to this was that we bring the claim against Liverpool, therefore we had to prepare an extremely robust case.

“You’re talking a documentation bundle of probably in excess of 400 or 500 pages with witness statements, evidence, analytics about player performance, the statement as to why we make a judgement as to what we believe the player is worth, compared to what Liverpool want to offer.

“You get your ducks in a row and do the job right.”

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND - Saturday, August 29, 2015: Liverpool's Danny Ings in action against West Ham United during the Premier League match at Anfield. (Pic by David Rawcliffe/Propaganda)

Liverpool were believed to have valued Ings at £6 million, while Tottenham Hotspur’s £12 million bid last summer has seen Burnley’s valuation rise to around £10 million; the current record stands at £6.5 million, which Chelsea paid Manchester City to sign Daniel Sturridge in 2009.

The 23-year-old is currently sidelined with an ACL injury, and is likely to miss the rest of the season, despite recently returning to outdoor running.

But Baldwin has stressed that Ings’ injury should bear no factor on the tribunal—nor his form since leaving the club.

“The value is based on training compensation, not the market value of a player,” he continued.


“It’s how long you have that player at your club, what did you do to develop him, what were your investments in how you developed him and as a result of that what player did you produce at the point he departed your club.

“Thereafter, his injury should bear no relevance to the tribunal panel.

“We are dealing with five human beings here who have to make an opinion and no right to appeal.”

Ings is set to play an important role under Jurgen Klopp on his return, with his infectious, hardworking attacking style well suited to the German’s brand of football.

But for both clubs, the frustration continues, as this is a matter that should have been resolved months ago.

Share:

More on This Is Anfield



More LFC news, opinion & videos

Fan Comments

Comments are retrospectively moderated. Some could be subject to delays before publication. They must obey the comment policy. Comments load below.

Please only discuss the article above. General chat can be made on our forums at forums.thisisanfield.com


275 COMMENTS

          • Jamy Vardy came in for 1M to Leicester. I’d say that’s a decent marker for the Ings transfer. Coming into the EPL, Vardy was worth 1,5M. At the end of the season 3,5M. So that’s a Danny Ings compensation right there. 3,5M. Adios Burnley.

          • I don’t think that will play a factor man…like you can go across both sides of the spectrum really. Bournemouth paid 11mil for Bennik Afobe, we paid 25mil for Lallana. Hopefully 7mil will seal it all things considered.

          • Well then how is a Vardy buy different in that case if we’re comparing? I’m just saying, if we’re going to compare to success stories in the transfer market then there’s all scopes of buys really. Can’t take an isolated Vardy buy into account here.

          • I mean, they bought Vardy for 1M (quite similar to Ings) and after his first season in the EPL his reported marketvalue was 3,5M.

          • I don’t think we can go by transferleague values man…players always end up being sold for more than the listed value out there. Since we already bid 6mil I don’t think the tribunal will assign any value below that to begin with. My hope is it’s just not too much more than that. 7mil is about right IMO. Anything over is a bit of a robbery taking all factors into account.

          • Not sure if we bid 6 btw. I think we did 5 and “were prepared to pay 6” but never did.

            And players get sold indeed. But the odd stuff here is that it’s not about being sold, it’s compensation for training him a couple of years.

          • Yeah I just read the Burnley CEO’s quotes…and I’m like so you’re saying you want 10mil for training him for a few years and helping you in the process? Ok then. The quotes about 400-500 pages document is also a bit of a joke IMO….they’re going to try and drag this procedure out when in reality it isn’t that complicated.

          • Yeah, most likely it’s a 10 page document of which 1 frontpage, a table of content, an about and a disclaimer ;)

          • But if you train him up to be a goal scoring PL player then that’s valuable. Still have sturridge as a comparison but you could say his talent was always there and he didn’t advance to regular starter.
            Also if analytics show his growth then you can claim credit for that too.

          • Based upon what citeh got for Studge, Burnley’s compensation for Danny Ings should be ~ £5.5m to £6m.

          • Ofcourse there was growth…that’s why I’m saying take £7mil and be done with it. There’s no way Burnley can treat this valuation like a regular signing..we all know business isn’t done at MV for most signings out there and always done at a higher price. I mean even I like to use the term MV from time to time but in reality it’s a bit of a myth, in that there is no “market” and buying and selling of goods here technically.

          • oh I’m with you, it’s so unpredictable what ends up being done. it’s the ultimate free market I guess ie every transfer is contextually different – buyer/seller/contract length/desperation etc.

            I think in this case he’s at the top of the age range of tribunal fees and he actually made it to being a goal scoring PL payer if modestly but decently so. that makes it unusual I think given most tribunal fees are for youngsters and so progress has generally been modest as they’re not old enough to have made a ton of progress.
            Ings might break the mould in that sense – he’s actually old enough and made the step up to PL standard. So Burnley may end up being proved right in this case and get a bunch more than say Sturridge went for.

          • oh thanks. hadn’t realised.
            but they could/will claim the step up to PL standard goal scorer was done under them.

          • Doesn’t matter..you know he won’t go for anything even close to that amount if he does end up leaving. And it’s not like you can get a proven goalscorer for a 29 year old 9mil English player…so then what really is the point of this MV?

          • Granted, it’s a german webbased database so they don’t take in account the silly English overhyped stuff. And I told you a couple of times, it’s marketvalue times 1,5 (usually). Vardy will be a bit inflated I’m sure.

          • The 1.5 times bit is kind of accounted for considering their figure is always in Euros and we’ve almost always talked about players with restpect to Liverpool and England/EPL. Current exchange rate – £1 = 1.28 euros.

            Goalscorers of this ilk simply cannot go for such small amounts of money.

          • Oh no, it’s market value times 1,5 of the transferfee. Either in euro’s or Pounds. If you go to the .co.uk one you get the numbers in pounds.

            So if Vardy has a 2 or 3 year contract with Leicester he’d go for around 15M pounds. Surely it’s inflated due to his new contract and insane season. Mahrez is put on 15M, which is reasonable if you take away the “playing in England” part which makes him a 30M player.

          • Sorry I really didn’t understand what you’re saying here. I thought your original point was Real transfer value = 1.5 times MV shown on the site.

            The 9m figure you mentioned was in euros yes? transferleague . co . uk seems to be a different site to transfermarkt which actually shows the valuation and has always been in euros when I’ve seen it I think.

            My point is you have to take the insane season into account because that’s how the rules are set quite simply. And even 30mil is 2 times 15mil not 1.5.

          • Ok, I’ll try to clear it up :)

            – transfermarkt with .co.uk is the right version, not transferleague.
            – Vardy is noted at 9M pounds
            – Negotiated fees (as a rule of thumb) generally end up somewhere around that 1.5x marketvalue. So if has a current market value of 20M the negotiated fee will be around 30M. Could be 26, could be 33. That’s down to how bad a player wants to go, negotiations, stature of club etc.
            – Exception to that rule is if he’s in the last year of his contract
            – I don’t know when Vardy signed the new deal? If he did that after the window that hasn’t been taken into account.
            – The algorythm the site uses isn’t infallable, there’s a couple of examples that raises a brow. Current value of Vardy is one. You’d expect it to be higher.

    • From what we’ve seen of Ings up close, even if it’s up to £10 million it’s a pretty decent deal. £10 million doesn’t buy much in football these days and thing Ingsy has the potential to be worth much more (if he recovers well from his ACL… touch wood)

        • Yeah don’t get me wrong the rulebook on this is a joke but at the end of the day if we’d have signed him for £10 million in the middle of his contract then we would be relatively happy with the business the club had done so really we shouldn’t lose too much sleep over it. Plus I think it’s nice that the lesser clubs get something out of it. Local family clubs need a bit of a leg up to compete with the big boys in the modern era now that money has effectively become the most important aspect of the game

          • He was still under contract 19 and English.

            We should play all our cards get the best money out of a outgoing player but make make sure we dont get played by the same when buying.

            Burnley are doing nothing wrong in asking the max possible money but us paying more than 5 millions for a free agent is bonkers.

          • Good post. But yet it seems like we will be paying 6mil at the very least…I’m saying this because we already did kind of offer them 6mil.

          • anything under 5 or 6 at max should be a great deal for burnley. Ingsy is a great guy. Its just us failing to handle this transfer negotiation get me emotional.

      • I know what you mean, but surely there has to be some difference between buying a player on a contract and taking him up on free. 10mil is still a decent bit of money at the end of the day. Ofcourse, if it works out then he’s considered a bargain. That should ideally not factor into this discussion though. Based on his Burnley performances I think 7mil is a decent shout.

        • agreed the “fee” is for the amount of money that they have invested in his training, coaching etc not the value of the player. Did he get in the England squad before the injury (last September) that was getting touted as more money but surely shouldnt come into account. it is still a disgrace that the premier league has still not resolved the matter but i am not surprised a little. i am with you 7 maybe 8 million keep everybody happy. has there been a date for the tribunal?

          • I’m not sure the date has but it wouldn’t surprise me if it isn’t resolved until after the season ends really. According to the rules atleast, there seem to be a few factors here –
            1. Difference between the two clubs,
            2. Ings’ age.
            3. Difference in contract offered between the two clubs
            4. Did he get called up to England NT squad
            5. Bid from other clubs and if so, to what an extent.

      • Agree. Was going to comment that even if it is £10m its still going to turn out to be a bargain IMO. Think he fits Klopp’s style and he started well before the unfortunate injury.

    • Yes burnley should just take what they are given
      Half a million more than chelsea paid for studge 7 years ago its not going to happen and rightly not
      What the point of the little clubs bringing players through if they can just walk away for peanuts

          • Well LFC wanted 3mil for him so my guess is that was the optimistic target and I think a value between 2-2.5mil would be more realistic. Only reason Ings made it to the English team is because it’s so sh***te..nowadays players don’t need to do much other than to play for a top 5/6 club to get an England cap.

          • He’s only had one international cap by now – you’re making far too big of a deal about that. Even Jonjo Shelvey, who cost Swansea 5mil, has had more already. And if I’m not mistaken, he only got it after he feautured for Liverpool.

          • Your missing a massive point we wanted to sell shelvey we excepted a price he was also in a contractings is moving under a different rule

            Burnley did not want to sell and had a 12 million offer from spurs ,personally i think it will be set over 10 million which is about the price they would have excepted of us as he wanted to move to us and not spurs

          • I think their £10 million valuation was spot on the money. We disagreed and hoped to low ball, in the belief the tribunal will agree with us if Burnley didn’t.
            In a way I hope the tribunal do agree a lesser fee of around £9 million, and then charge LFC interest and all the costs involved in the unnecessarily involvement of the tribunal…so over £10 million.
            I’m sure I will be abused by some of this forums mentally challenged tr00ls for saying this, but just because I support Liverpool doesn’t mean I have to condone this BIG clubs bullying the smaller ones. No chance we would have allowed Ings to be sold for less than £10 million, so why should Burnely?

          • trools haha like it
            some just do not understand how much some of the lower league clubs spend on youth development only to see their players taken at all ages , if the lower league clubs did not bring a lot of these players through a lot would never even get the chance

          • Im not sure Liverpool are trying to bully anybody-dont these compensation cases for under 24 year old domestic transfer always go to tribunal? Im dont see why Liverpool should be liable for the process any more than Burnley. Liverpool would be neglectful if they didnt get the best price for the club. As would Burnley if they didnt look for the best for their club. In this case the Spurs bid was questionable in its integrity, it was recognised Ings was going to liverpool from what i recall.
            Im sure you will recognise this as well meaning adult debate and not mentally challenged abuse.

          • They only go to a tribunal if the two clubs can’t agree a fee between them.
            Burnley asked a fair price and we refused to meet it, preferring to chance our arm at the tribunal.

          • We offered a fair price and they refused to accept it, preferring to chance their arm at the tribunal

          • No we didn’t!!! In what alternate universe is £6 million a fair price for a prejudice 22 year old talent and proven EPL and Championship goalscorer!?

          • Not that comparing transfer fees elsewhere means anything when we’re talking about an out of contract player, but Charlie Austin although a few years older, was also a far more proven goalscorer, and cost Southampton ~£4m…

          • YES but as under 24 the same applies as for Ings. We will demand a compensation fee from Watford, and I bet you it isn’t peanuts…and Sinclair has proved nothing

          • Yes, we will demand a compensation fee. We won’t get whatever we think is his full transfer value though.

          • I’m not saying we will, but the under 24 compensation is designed to ensure we do! Man City got £8.3 million for Studge when he let his contract run down. That was 9 years ago and he had only scored 5 goals in 3 years. 6 years later Ings scored 26 in 45 in the Championship the year before last and 11 in 37 in the EPL last season, as well as being a full international…something Studge was not!

          • No, the ruling is designed to ensure that clubs are adequately compensated for the loss of the player, not that they receive the transfer fee. The only way to ensure that a club receives the full transfer fee is for the club to agree a transfer while the player is under contract to said club

          • I dont recall any such transfer not going to tribunal,i am obviously open to correction on that. Its interesting how price is determined, somebody posted how the Sturridge fee for Chelsea was determined else where, it seems much more appropriate than what Burnley are reported to have demanded. Price is greatly influenced by contract length-an area Burnley somehow managed to let lapse, thats their negligence not ours. Ings has potential no doubt but he is far from proven in the premier league for the money they are looking. The tribunal will no doubt structure a deal where by Burnley will be rewarded by Ings reaching set targets. I really dont see anything wrong in how Liverpool have approached this-its business plain and simple.

          • That’s because BIG try to steal from the smaller ones, so usually low ball, and if the selling club dont agree then it goes to tribunal who historically under value players. Most clubs on an equal footing agree deals without the need for a tribunal

          • I think steal is a bit harsh on Liverpools approach in this instance i must say. Just because Liverpool are a bigger club does not mean they should pay what ever Burnley demand. The tribunal is there to protect all concerned interests. I dont see why Liverpool should roll over to unrealistic demands. If Burnley had offered him the wages in relation to the value they hold him in then surely they wouldnt find themselves in this position.

          • £10 million was a fair and reasonable expectation on Burnley’s behalf. £6 million is taking the p…
            26 goals in 45 Championship games 2013/14
            11 goals in 37 EPL games 2014/15
            3 goals in 8 games for LFC…and a 22 year old full international.
            £6 million was derisory and insulting.

          • Its now how value is determined…..

            The Professional Football Compensation Committee regulations stipulates that the following costs 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.

            So the fact [if that is what it is] that Totenham offered £12m is irrelevant.

            Somebody else posted this to explain how price is determined. I really dont see why Liverpool should pay for Burnleys poor management of Ings contract. It seems to me the Ceo is trying to make up for his own failure to get Ings renewed by talking a good game to the media. It wont wash im sure.

          • Nonsense. You are citing training compensation under the EPPP regime – that applies to Academy players ONLY!! This has nothing to do with the football leagues rule 64

          • My mistake i only repeated what someone else posted although from what i had read thats how i understood the process to work. Maybe you could post the different appraisal method that applies to cases such as Ings.

          • 65.4 The criteria are:

            65.4.1 the status of the two Clubs involved;

            65.4.2 the age of the Player;

            65.4.3 the amount of any Transfer Fee or Compensation Fee paid by the Transferor Club upon acquiring the registration of the Player;

            65.4.4 the length of time during which the Transferor Club held the registration of the Player;

            65.4.5 the terms of the new contract offered to the Player by both Clubs;

            65.4.6 the Player’s playing record in Club and international team appearances; and

            65.4.7 substantiated interest shown by other Clubs in acquiring the services of the Player.

          • I stand corrected.I still dont see how this values him at 10m when he is out of contract though i must say. A deal that rewards Burnley if he meets targets is much more appropriate plus percentage of sell on. I dont see him playing much under Klopp if im truthful. He is a good player but well behind Origi in my opinion who cost 10 million. Time will tell how it pans out, lets hope he is an unequivocal success but I think liverpool are 100% right to be prudent in what they pay and i feel your criticism of the clubs approach a bit harsh. Just my opinion and no harm meant while expressing it.

          • Because he’s the most expensive of all players. An English striker with a proven track record, a full international and still only 23 years of age.
            In 2009 Studge left Man City under the same circumstances. Man City got £6.5 million and 15% sell on (£8.3M). Studge had not made his international debut and had only scored 5 (five) goals.

            6 years on (an absolute age where inflation is involved in the world of football) Ings who has scored 26 Championship goals in 2013/14 (better than a goal every 2 games) and 11 EPL goals in 2014/2015….is only worth £6 million!? I think not!

          • A full international? Come on thats stretching it quite a bit he has 1 cap-which lets face it he only got because Hodgson plays every English player at liverpool. Would he make the euros ahead of Kane Vardy Sturridge and Rooney. At 23 his record is very average for an alleged 10mil player. Origi cost that while in contract, younger and just starred in the world cup.Sturridge was at city and then chelsea so i dont see how comparing their records is worthwhile Ings was at Burnley in fairness,he was surely going to play more than Sturridge. Is there any doubt Sturridge is a better footballer than Ings? I dont think so. His fee was half up front with instalments based on performance. Something more than appropriate for Ings in this case

          • Has he played for the national team? Yes, therefore a full international.
            Average!?!? He scored 26 goals in 45 games in 2014/15, then in the EPL for a struggling and them demoted team scored 11 in 37, and for Liverpool has scored 3 in 8. His record is far superior to what Studge’s was when City got £8.3 million for him…and that was 6 years ago, and values have rocketed since then.
            You have to remember he was 21 when he got 26 goals and 22 when he got 11 EPL goals. £6 million??? HAHA Ridiculous!!

          • That comparison is pointless-the variables are markedly different, 21 what is that supposed to mean? Michael Owen was at a higher level at 17. Origi was starting upfront for Belgium at 18. some perspective. I for one am glad the club is not bending to Burnleys demands, lets hope he becomes a regular premier league goalscorer for Liverpool personally i dont see him getting more than 5 or 6 pl goals a season. There have being so many players like him who come from the championship at his age and are blown up as the next big thing but disappear almost as quickly. Dave Kitson, Danny Graham, Kevin Doyle, Kevin Philips, jan Fjortoft, matt jansen etc etc etc.

          • 21 as Studge was 20 years and 10 months and had only scored 5 goals in 3 years, comparable to Ings at 21 scoring 25 goals. the comparison was with a similar aged English striker who was completely unproven, yet even City managed to get £8,3 million for him, yet 6 years on LFC will have us believe Ings is only worth £6 million. Laughable!!

          • Sturridge was at a club, with massive investment, Ings was bought by Burnley from Bornmouth to play in their first team. Why tell half the story?? City only got that fee after Sturridge proved himself and moved to Liverpool. Their initial fee was 3.5 million. I really dont understand how or why you want to criticise Liverpool for being prudent? Makes no sense to me as a fellow supporter. If Ings is a massive success it will activate clauses to reward burnley surely? Much fairer for all concerned

          • Prudent? Get real will you…we are trying to bully a smaller club and get a player for half his true value.

          • Surely with the existence of the tribunal its impossible for any club to get bullied,as you put it, I find this take on the subject really strange i must say.

          • Not at all. Liverpool are offering a lower than true value amount in order to bully Burnley into accepting it. If they don’t ( as they didn’t) they will have to wait over a year for any money at all (not fair for a demoted smaller club) and then take the gamble on the tribunal finding in their favour, and when they do it will be in installments. If Burnely were asking for £15 million then fair enough. But the £10 million they were asking for is very fair in todays market for an English striker of his age, his goal record and his experience. £6 million is an insult

          • The player is out of contract-so he clearly is not worth 10m. Thats Burnleys negligence in not improving their players wages in time not Liverpools. They are in no position to hold Liverpool to ransome. Ings isa good player nothing more at this stage. He may become a top player one day- that doesnt mean Liverpool should throw away money on the off chance he does.

            As for Bullying i dont see where you get that-Burnley could have had this to tribunal by now if they wanted all they had to do is report they were not satisfied with the fee offered, they have being haggling over the price for months, This latest from their Ceo is blatant scare tactics. I hope the tribunal judges 3 million- their Ceo is a cowboy. He wouldnt pay Ings his worth initially and now he wants Liverpool to pay for his incompetence. I find your position very strange as a lIverpool supporter i must say.

          • Not without a contract its quite clear to me- anyway lets see how it plays out. And enjoy todays game,

          • As a player out of contract I wouldnt see him worth more than 6 million,in no way. Liverpool are not short of English players for quota purposes so that premuim clubs try to add for that is not relevant for them. Ings choose Liverpool-its in no way Burnleys deal to dictate. Its their own sloppiness in not renewing his contract on time. i wouldnt have any sympathy for them

          • Yet studge was worth £8.3 million 6 years ago?
            Don’t accuse me of telling half a story!! Liverpool refused any add ons, with a £6 all in offer. I’m fully aware the deal for studge was £3.5 + £0.5 for each ten games played upto 40 games and then 15% of any sell on.
            It is LFC who are trying to get one over Burnley! I’m sure Burnely would be happy with a structured deal, as they are confident in Ings ability.

          • Where do you get your information on what liverpool offered and how it was structured ? Has that being made public?
            Some interesting quotes from the Burnley Ceo, seem to contradict what you are saying about how value is determined.

            “The value is based on training compensation, not the market value of a player,” added Baldwin.

            “It’s how long you have that player at your club, what did you do to develop him, what were your investments in how you developed him and as a result of that what player did you produce at the point he departed your club.

            “Thereafter, his injury should bear no relevance to the tribunal panel.

            “We are dealing with five human beings here who have to make an opinion and no right to appeal.”

          • Because it was well documented and reported that LFC offered a one off payment of £6 million, where Burnley expected a compromise to be made with LFC increasing their offer to £6 million + extra payments when certain goals where met (as in Studge deal)…It was Liverpool’s refusal to come back with a compromise that resulted in this going to the tribunal

          • You are completely missing the point!!
            The under 24 rule was set up to ensure clubs got the true value of players..the fact he is out of contract is completely irrelevant!! That is the point of the under 24 rule.

          • Its completely relevant, its why Liverpool didnt allow sterlings contract run any lower. Any players value is determined by contract length. Burnely didnt renew Ings contract in time to a satisfactory level to the player quite clearly. No you seem to expect Liverpool to ignore that and pay a transfer premium for a player not in contract. In essence you want liverpool to take the hit Burnley deserve for not paying their player properly.That just makes no sense at all to me. Burnley getting 6 mil is more than fair for a player they were paying at championship wages.

          • And you think the tribunal will agree with you? No chance, Burnely will get much closer to the £10 million they reasonable asked for.

          • Agree with me, ha no. I would expect the tribunal to fall somewhere close to Liverpools valuation however as i would have faith Liverpool would be able to identify his correct valuation in this case and offer it. As i said a structured deal such as the sturridge deal for City looks ideal and fair to all parties to me.

          • 67 Players Over 24

            67.1 A Player aged 24 years or over as at 30 June is entitled (subject to Regulation 41) to sign for any Club of his choice without restriction on the expiry of his contract on or after that date without payment of any Compensation Fee.

            67.2 A Player who is under 24 years as at 30 June will have to wait until the following 30 June before he is entitled to the benefit of Regulation 67.1.

            67.3 An Over 24 Player who has refused an offer of re-engagement which, in the opinion of the Board is not less favourable than the Player’s current contractual terms, shall not be entitled to any severance or other payment in respect of the expiry of his contract or for any period after the expiry of his contract.

            67.4 This Regulation 67 applies notwithstanding any other provisions in these Regulations and if there is any conflict, Regulation 67 shall prevail.

            68 Avoidance and Evasion of Transfer Fees and/or Compensation Fees

            68.1 If in the opinion of the Board a Contract of Service has been drawn up or amended with the purpose or effect of avoiding or evading the payment of full compensation in accordance with the intent of the provisions of these Regulations, the Board shall require the Club which is responsible for so drawing up or amending the contract to pay to the Club entitled to compensation the amount of compensation which the Board considers in its absolute discretion ought to be paid.

            68.2 If in the opinion of the Board any Club unfairly traffics or deals in the registration of any Player or otherwise abuses in any way the system of transfer and compensation provided for by these Regulations or the intent thereof such Club shall be guilty of misconduct. If applicable the Board shall require such Club to pay to the Club from whom the registration of any Player was transferred such sum as the Board may consider just.

            68.3 If any question within the ambit of this Regulation 68 shall arise in relation to a transfer between Clubs in membership of The League and The Premier League, any issues relating to alleged misconduct shall be referred to the Football Association and any question relating to the Transfer and/or Compensation Fee payable shall not be referred to the Board but direct to the Professional Football Compensation Committee.

            69 Professional Football Compensation Committee

            69.1 The Professional Football Compensation Committee shall adjudicate upon disputes:

            69.1.1 arising from the transfer of registrations of Non Contract Players under Regulation 57;

            69.1.2 arising from the re engagement system for Contract Players including disputes under Regulation 64; and

            69.1.3 as provided in Regulations 60, 63 and 70;

            69.2 The provisions of Appendix 4 – Regulations of the Professional Football Compensation Committee shall govern the conduct of proceedings before it.

          • The rules hes refering to govern academy players from the age of 11 ,i doubt they cover england internationals
            The ones hes on about are say if a 13 year old wants to leave a club and go to another

          • You are correct they don’t.

            65.4 The criteria are:

            65.4.1 the status of the two Clubs involved;

            65.4.2 the age of the Player;

            65.4.3 the amount of any Transfer Fee or Compensation Fee paid by the Transferor Club upon acquiring the registration of the Player;

            65.4.4 the length of time during which the Transferor Club held the registration of the Player;

            65.4.5 the terms of the new contract offered to the Player by both Clubs;

            65.4.6 the Player’s playing record in Club and international team appearances; and

            65.4.7 substantiated interest shown by other Clubs in acquiring the services of the Player.

          • I agree we should pay whatever is demanded, and if Burnley were being greedy and asked for £15 million + then I would agree to not pay it and let the tribunal decide. But £10 million was very reasonable considering his age, talent and experience.
            Let’s see what the tribunal decide….I bet it ain’t £6 million!!!!

          • I would guess the structure of the deal rather than fee is the bigger issue. If Ings becomes the player its hopped then paying 10mil is not a problem but paying a lump up front would be plain negligent and unprofessional by the club if we were to agree.

          • I disagree as he’s a proven striker at all levels. He’s not an academy player were you are only buying potential. Ings has proved his quality and worth at the highest level. Paying £10 million would have been far and very reasonable. Liverpool had best hope the tribunal sets a fixed figure and doesn’t add on extra compensation for games played, goals scored and international call up’s…if they do then paying the £10 million would have been the much cheaper option!

          • You’re mixing up MV and the rules that go behind coming up with the compensation out here. They are most definitely not the same thing and other factors play into the valuation out here as well.

          • I’m fully aware of the rules, are you!?
            Man City got £8.3 million for a 21 year old Studge back in 2009 when he had only scored 5 goals in 3 seasons. So why is Ings worth only £6 million…nonsense!

          • I never said worth £6mil, he may well be beyond that amount…but we shouldn’t treat this like a normal transfer. If this independent panel come up with some kind of unexpected high price, then it could set up bit of a dangerous precedent for the future. They’ll be expected to have consistency on this matter for the future as well and I’m not sure how much you know about the Zeki Fryers situation with Tottenham, but that could well be the case going into the future with a lot of these promising English youngsters. I personally find it a bit ridiculous that a European club can get a potentially world class youth product like Pogba for free, yet if the same player was going to LFC/Arsenal/Chelsea we’d end up seeing some kind of astronomical price.

            There was absolutely no guarantees on how well Ings would have done for LFC at the time of the transfer…and considering Dele Alli went to Tottenham for a measly 5mil, what would you say would have been the right amount for him if he were to leave his club on free?

          • 65.4 The criteria are:

            65.4.1 the status of the two Clubs involved;

            65.4.2 the age of the Player;

            65.4.3 the amount of any Transfer Fee or Compensation Fee paid by the Transferor Club upon acquiring the registration of the Player;

            65.4.4 the length of time during which the Transferor Club held the registration of the Player;

            65.4.5 the terms of the new contract offered to the Player by both Clubs;

            65.4.6 the Player’s playing record in Club and international team appearances; and

            65.4.7 substantiated interest shown by other Clubs in acquiring the services of the Player.

          • Yeah, all factors into determining MV from a very academic perspective but let’s see what happens in the real world. Btw I did read a lot of this from the Guardian link already I had posted below/above.

          • 67 Players Over 24

            67.1 A Player aged 24 years or over as at 30 June is entitled (subject to Regulation 41) to sign for any Club of his choice without restriction on the expiry of his contract on or after that date without payment of any Compensation Fee.

            67.2 A Player who is under 24 years as at 30 June will have to wait until the following 30 June before he is entitled to the benefit of Regulation 67.1.

            67.3 An Over 24 Player who has refused an offer of re-engagement which, in the opinion of the Board is not less favourable than the Player’s current contractual terms, shall not be entitled to any severance or other payment in respect of the expiry of his contract or for any period after the expiry of his contract.

            67.4 This Regulation 67 applies notwithstanding any other provisions in these Regulations and if there is any conflict, Regulation 67 shall prevail.

            68 Avoidance and Evasion of Transfer Fees and/or Compensation Fees

            68.1 If in the opinion of the Board a Contract of Service has been drawn up or amended with the purpose or effect of avoiding or evading the payment of full compensation in accordance with the intent of the provisions of these Regulations, the Board shall require the Club which is responsible for so drawing up or amending the contract to pay to the Club entitled to compensation the amount of compensation which the Board considers in its absolute discretion ought to be paid.

            68.2 If in the opinion of the Board any Club unfairly traffics or deals in the registration of any Player or otherwise abuses in any way the system of transfer and compensation provided for by these Regulations or the intent thereof such Club shall be guilty of misconduct. If applicable the Board shall require such Club to pay to the Club from whom the registration of any Player was transferred such sum as the Board may consider just.

            68.3 If any question within the ambit of this Regulation 68 shall arise in relation to a transfer between Clubs in membership of The League and The Premier League, any issues relating to alleged misconduct shall be referred to the Football Association and any question relating to the Transfer and/or Compensation Fee payable shall not be referred to the Board but direct to the Professional Football Compensation Committee.

            69 Professional Football Compensation Committee

            69.1 The Professional Football Compensation Committee shall adjudicate upon disputes:

            69.1.1 arising from the transfer of registrations of Non Contract Players under Regulation 57;

            69.1.2 arising from the re engagement system for Contract Players including disputes under Regulation 64; and

            69.1.3 as provided in Regulations 60, 63 and 70;

            69.2 The provisions of Appendix 4 – Regulations of the Professional Football Compensation Committee shall govern the conduct of proceedings before it.

          • How is it Ings fault?!?
            Why should he sign a new contract when he wants to leave once his contract expires!?!?
            Burnley asked a fair price, and we completely low balled them. Even Spurs offered £12 million for his services.
            The player did nothing wrong, and Burnley asked a fair price for their main talent.

          • We didn’t low ball them. LFC offered what they thought was value for a player with an expiring contract. Just as we got rinsed when McManaman and Owen walked away, Burnley should blame themselves for not getting ‘market value’ for Ings. They had the option to dictate the price while he was under contract, and shouldn’t still have that option for an out contract player

          • Nonsense, we low balled them as he was out of contract. Even Spurs offered £12 million for him.
            If under 1 remaining years contract he would have been worth in excess of £15 million. Out of contract makes no difference for an under 24 year old. I just hope the tribunal come up with a value close to what Burnely reasonably expected, and not the insulting £6 million offer

          • That’s Burnley’s business. They should have ensured that his contract didn’t expire, or sold him on before it did, if they wanted to dictate his transfer value.

          • More nonsense. You can’t put a gun to a players head and make him sign, and every young player has the right to see out his contract and then move on to bigger and better things should he so wish. And it’s not like the Owen or Macca deal which is about getting higher wages and signing on fee. For young players it’s about getting the move they want without being held back by the selling clubs valuation. No doubt if under contract Burnley would have been demanding between £15-£20 million for Ings.
            You are completely missing the point…this isnt about controlling a transfer value, as Ings was no longer their player to sell. It’s about being compensated for the talent you are losing to a bigger club. What he is worth on current value, how much Burnely have put into his development etc…£10 million was a fair request and good for both Liverpool and Burnley…who were also offered £12 million by Spurs.

          • £12m was an offer made for an under contract player. LFC did not sign an under contract player, so his market valuation would’ve been reduced drastically.
            The simple fact is that the club holds the opportunity to dictate the transfer fee and sell a player while he remains under contract. Once the contract is expiring, that power is gone. LFC are well within their rights to determine that £6m was a fair offer.

            Btw, you do not know that Owen and McManaman left just for higher wages and signing on fees, nor that Ings did not move for that same motivation also. Real Madrid offered them far greater opportunity for glory (as well as other positives, including finances) in much the same manner as Liverpool taking on Ings from Burnley

          • I never said they left for that reason…I said they let their contracts expire for that reason!

          • Same difference

            You do not know that they chose to let their contracts run down for any particular reason, just as you don’t know that Ings did not let his contract run down for that reason himself

          • Everyone knows they chose to run their contracts down with the view to moving to Madrid on a free and get a large signing on fee and huge wages. Both players had agreed deals with Madrid whilst still playing for LFC.
            Not the same difference at all, in fact very different!

          • It was equally common knowledge that Ings was coming to Liverpool, even when Spurs bid for him before his contract expired.

            You are still making an assumption that two of the most prominent players in English football at the time were moving purely for money, whereas Ings was deciding to join Liverpool for no such reason. The truth is that in each situation there were likely very similar motivations, including the opportunity to maximise their earnings.

          • if you can’t make your p[oint on your own, then don’t bother!! I’m getting sick and tired of you twisting my words to fit your failing argument!!!!
            Where did I say they were leaving just for money!?!? Nowhere that’s where!!!!
            i said they ran down their contracts to ensure they got higher wages and a signing on fee….I never said that was why they were leaving….and before you say it’s the same thing…NO IT ISN’T!!!!

          • So what was the point in continually voicing your opinion on their contracts as if it were fact, if not to imply that money was the motivating factor in this moves (and was not the same with Ings)??

          • Are you struggling with the English language?
            Not once have I implied money was the motivation in their moves. I cited that was the reason why they allowed their contracts to run down, before moving. Playing for Real Madrid is motive enough to move on. Allowing your contract to run down prior to moving, is all about money!!

          • You’re struggling with making your own point mate. I’m not going to continue pointing out the failings in your ‘logic’

          • I suggest you actually read the words I use in my posts, and stop making up what you think I have said or implied.
            I never said Ings move was not motivated by money…I’m pretty sure it wasn’t, but that is not the point. I was making a general comment as to why many young players allow their contracts to run out…..”For young players it’s about getting the move they want without being held back by the selling clubs valuation. No doubt if under contract Burnley would have been demanding between £15-£20 million for Ings”

          • Actually I’ll prefer to stop responding to your posts rather than going back and forth any longer on your constantly moving argument

          • 1) I said Macca and Owen ran down their contracts due to getting better wages and signing on fee…that is very different from their motivation to leave being all about money.
            2) I said young players often run down their contract, so their present clubs inflated value doesn’t hinder them getting the move they want…again, very different from saying Ings not motivated by money.
            Get yourself and education and then come back Jay, better still find a forum more to your intellectual capabilities, where you can keep up…try CBeebies!!??
            Just think Jay your ignorance and stup1dity were once your own private shame…thanks for sharing! :)

          • Seriously you can’t be that fekin stup1d!?!?
            You falsely claimed that I said their reason for moving was all about money….NO I did not!!! I said their reason for running down their contracts was due to money…their reasons for leaving are obvious…It’s Real Madrid.
            You also said it was the same difference…actually I will take back that question….you clearly are that feckin stup1d, if you can’t differentiate between the reason for leaving (to play for one of the top clubs in the world) and the reason behind letting your contract run down before making the move.

          • Wages and signing on fees aren’t about money… ok, mate.

            As I said, I’ll leave you to your confused ramblings – enjoy! :-)

          • WOW…you really are the missing link!!!
            Reason for leaving = joining one of the biggest clubs in Europe.
            Reason for (WAITING) until contract runs out = about money
            Not the same thing as moving for money!!
            Conclusion….your mum must be so proud of her “special” little man HAHA

          • Wages and signing on fees aren’t about money… ok, mate.

            As I said, I’ll leave you to your confused ramblings – enjoy! :-)

          • WOW…you really are the missing link!!!
            Reason for leaving = joining one of the biggest clubs in Europe.
            Reason for (WAITING) until contract runs out = about money
            Conclusion….your mum must be so proud of her “special” one

          • Only confusing to someone with your limited intelligence. A child can tell the difference between the reason for leaving (to play for Madrid) and the reason to delay the move until contract runs out (for the money)
            You are like a pigeon who plays chess,
            You flap around knocking over all the pieces and sh1tting everywhere…then declare yourself the victor…the sad thing is, I really think you do honestly believe you are right and this is not just you trying to save face after being owned!!
            Run along now little boy, grown ups are talking :)

          • Run along now stalker…it’s a school day tomorrow and from reading your posts, it’s clear you can’t afford to miss a single lesson…go on “special little man”, up the wooden hill with you.

          • “I just hope the tribunal come up with a value close to what Burnely reasonably expected, and not the insulting £6 million offer”

            Wow really!?? You in a particularly benevolent mood or something? This is business, we’ve gotten duped by lesser clubs all the time, both in terms of buying and selling players….spare me the social justice bit…if LFC could have him for a penny I’d take that without feeling any remorse on the other side of it.

          • FSG are taking the P… , it ain’t my money so yes I hope it ends up costing FSG more than the £10 million, only then may they realize why we lose so many potential signings, is down to Ayre’s opening offer that only goes to get the back up of the selling club, player and players agent.

          • Ayre and co need to have a better sense for negotiating in general, but in business it’s every club for themselves. We’ve paid over the top for players like Carroll, Downing, Lallana and Lovren in the past and then we’ve had some bargains. I have absolutely no problems in LFC only offering 6mil to Burnley as compensation when it was clear that Ings wanted to come over to LFC on free.

            In fact, I would have preferred if LFC had bid lower, since my guess is the tribunal will take the 6mil valuation into account and only start from there.

          • since my guess is the tribunal will take the 6mil valuation into account and only start from there….not a chance, it will end up costing Liverpool more than £10 million now, with the add ons the tribunal will bolt on, and I wouldn’t rule out the tribunal adding a sell on %

          • Btw your stance about it’s FSG’s money isn’t a fully correct one..we may be talking about fine margins here but this is all LFC related budget and is being taken away from the club at the end of the day. FSG do give a helping hand where it’s needed like stadium expansion, interest free loans and all of that, but in the larger sense LFC is supposed to be a self sustaining club. So that 3-5mil difference is coming off of LFC. I don’t feel the least bit charitable whether it’s small clubs…and regardless, Burnley are doing quite well for themselves at the moment.

          • well, if Ings wanted to do his part in protecting Burnley he could have signed a new deal with a cast iron release clause.
            Letting his contract expire means he gets a signing on fee at his new club so he didn’t really care about Burnley’s position at all and he wouldn’t expect them to get much in a tribunal, and they wouldn’t have either.

            We offered a nominal fee for an expiring contract when we had no obligation to do so. Clyne was an established England full back and a year left on his contract got sold for £12.5m.

          • According to you it was ALL Ings fault for not doing his bit to protect Burnley, from a derisory offer by Liverpool.
            £10 million is a fair and reasonable expectation by Burnley. Our £6 million offer was an insult, as the tribunal will soon demonstrate by awarding Burnley over £9 million in compensation.

          • according to me?? blah blah blah, at least read the whole thread. the point was made about protecting small clubs and ings didn’t do anything towards that except they could have sold him and got some money before hand.

            The club were also criticised for not spending a little more to give themselves better chances of PL survival, and with a decent setup that they had there it’s a valid point too in terms of them protecting their future.

            You certainly don’t start at £10m for a guy about to expire his contract, especially when a very talented and very highly rated Sturridge went for £6.5m after proving he could score regularly at a very young age. Nothing reasonable about that offer at all.

          • Man City got £6.5 million and 15% sell on for Studge back in 2009 (£8.3M). Studge had not made his international debut and had only scored 5 goals.
            So you are saying that 6 years on Ings who has scored 26 Championship goals in 2013/14 (better than a goal every 2 games) and 11 EPL goals in 2014/2015….should go for 1/2 million less!?!?!?
            Not your intention I know, but thanks anyway for just proving the £10 million was a very reasonable expectation!

          • go on and completely ignore Sturridge’s age and the context or role he was playing in back then – and still producing.
            Ings on the other hand was older, had more playing time, a leading role and played his part in getting a team relegated.

            there’s nothing there that says £10m is reasonable, you’ve just plucked that figure out of the air. It might be higher (unlikely given other tribunal fees) it might be lower (most likely given other tribunal fees).
            infact his age and record actually suggests his ceiling is close to what he was producing ie limited.

            Burnley are clearly banking on what you’re suggesting. I’m less convinced.

          • Studge was 20 years and 10 months when he moved to Chelsea. Ings was still 21 when he joined Liverpool.
            Yes let’s forget his 25 goals that got Burnley promoted shall we!?
            I have not plucked any figure from the air. £10 million is the fee Burnley asked for and refused to accept lower. Liverpool offered £6 million and refused to go higher….this is why it is now to be settled by the tribunal.
            I would be surprised if the tribunal set a figure higher than the one Burnley were asking for.
            They are not allowed to take the £12 million Spurs offer into account, but that’s a little like a judge telling the jury to dismiss what they have just heard.
            IMO the £10 million for a young English striker with a proven track record in both the Championship and EPL, not to mention a full international….is a good price. I believe the tribunal will agree, and the figure will be closer to £10 than the £6 offered. Knowing the way the tribunal have worked in the past, they may set the fee as an initial payments and additional payments to follow when certain targets are met….although as unlike Studge who was nothing more than potential, Ings already has a proven track record, so they may well set a figure that must be paid in one go…a figure way over £6 million

          • fair enough.

            but sturridge had already shown that he wasn’t just potential at that age and it was the clubs he was at that meant he wasn’t being given a chance, Ings had a lot to prove still in terms of PL.

            You maybe right but tribunals have rarely reflected the “value” of a player and infact don’t seem to outwardly reflect anything real. Fees of a low few million seem absurd for players who haven’t produced at senior level.

            Ings is closer to the top of the age range for tribunal stuff so it’s unusual and perhaps the fee will be higher because he will have developed further, most in this scenario are younger and so aren’t in this ball park. He’s 23 now?

            But rumour has it that last January/Feb that Burnley were looking for £7m. 2 things – first it would be surprising if that wasn’t a factor and second you would have to question liverpool for not going with that to seal the deal especially if you take into account his progress which would be factored into the tribunal decision.

            The savings from a favourable tribunal judgement almost certainly wasn’t going to be worth the agro and uncertainty. This assumes that they weren’t initially asking for £10m which is hard to know.

          • Ings was 22 when he left Burnely…that will be the age the committee base compensation on.
            If you look at the criteria of the tribunal, yes one is the status of the club he left, but another is his proven track record. Yes Studge demanded more as moving from City, but Studge only scored 5 goals in 3 seasons, whilst Ings scored 26 out of 45 2 seasons ago and 11 in 37 EPL games the next season.
            I think Liverpool will end up regretting not making a sensible £7.5 or £8 million offer. To stick at £6 million for a 22 year old English striker with a proven goal scoring record, seems odd to me….just as odd as offering Dele Alli £10k a week!!

          • yep, could well look silly pretty soon depending on what they were asking at the time for real.

            But bigger than that if we spend our lives (well the club) focussing on “distressed assets” ie contract run downs, clubs being relegated it suggests the damage could end up being that we don’t actually get what we need and miss out on real playing qualities by just ticking boxes.

            Take Matip for example, he’s CL experienced from a club with a reputation for developing some great players, he’s an ideal age for a starting CB at 24 ie some maturity there, but I’ve heard he’s only had 1 good season from a schalke supporter. He may end up struggling to be imposing and physical enough in our league but he ticked lots of boxes and the club are pleased because he was on a free. The risk is we just end up with an average CB.

            Lets say Ings, regardless of price, ends up being a 10 goal/season striker. Is that success or should we have gone for a higher level of player?
            I really hope Klopp gets the kind of AMs and wide players he really needs.

          • I think if it wasn’t for his injury Ings would have forced himself into the regular striker role by now. I think a lot of people with be surprised by Ings next season. He has the profile of a LFC and Klopp player…he will do well for us, and I’m predicting 20 goals from him next season (all competitions).

          • and keep sturridge too? If ings gets 20 goals then with sturridge aswell that could easily come close to a title challenge, assuming we get some contributions from firmino and couts.

          • But you seem to be missing a massive point as well in that this is a free transfer and the parent club should not be paying anywhere even close to the same amount of money it would if we were trying to get Ings while he was on a contract. This is just compensation for him being a youth player in England, it should not even be MV really.

            Are you seeing the kind of free transfers that are happening out there in Europe? Stars like Paul Pogba, Kingsley Coman moving for free to Juventus. If the Burnley CEO wants compensation for Ings merely using the training facility then that should be no more than 1mil in itself but here we are with this arbitrary rule trying to factor in MV as well.

          • its not a free transfer it was never going to be a free transfer
            we either paid them what they wanted or a tribunal would set the price
            I do not get why people thought he was going to be free from day one we knew he was not

          • You know what I mean by free…that it’s not the same as breaking a contract, so cannot be treated as one either.

          • It’s not based on market value though, it’s the training value, so if the have analytics to show improvement into a PL goal scorer only then do they have a good claim.

          • its not based on training value otherwise they would all be about the same value
            if he had say only started say about 10 games scored a couple of goals would it be anywhere near the price

          • they will claim their training made him a PL goalscorer in the 3 seasons they had him, presumably showing analytics to prove his improvement and taking credit for that.
            that’s not true of all players.

          • …and of his talent, proven EPL and Championship goal record.
            He is two years younger than Wellbeck and a far superior player, and he went for £16 million.
            We also paid £10.5 million for a 21 year old Borini.
            Yet a 22 year old Ings is only worth £7 million!?!?

          • the difference is that those players were under contract. If you want to protect your investment and ensure that you dictate his transfer value, then you have to ensure that the player is under contract

          • So what? The £10 million was still a sensible and realistic expectation, we should have offered it and not low balled them hoping the tribunal with a history of agreeing under valuations would be complicit in our ripping off of Burnley

          • Why should we have offered it if the club deemed that not to be a sensible and realistic valuation for a player with an expiring contract?

          • No the club knew it was sensible and realistic, but decided they would low ball and try to force Burnely into accepting less than the player was worth, in the knowledge/belief that the tribunal would also undervalue.
            Remember we paid over £10 million for Borini, so the club definitely knew Ings true value!!!

          • What we paid for one player in the past does not determine another player’s value. We paid no transfer fee for Milner and £10m for Can, both of whom sit ahead of the £15m Allen in the midfield pecking order. We paid £12m for Sturridge who sits ahead of the £32.5m Benteke in the pecking order. Origi was a full fledged international and played at a world cup before we paid £10m for him. Ilori’s £7m fee didn’t dictate what we paid for Gomez.

            Every individual transfer needs to be evaluated on its own merit, and Ings was an out of contract striker with 11 top flight goals under his belt. LFC were well within their rights to value the player as they did.

          • Chelsea have agreed to sell Eden Hazard to Real Madrid for £78 million…boy were we stitched up with Suarez!!!

          • reports claim ?
            but yes if they pay that for him barca got a bargain
            saying that i thought they got a bargain anyway considering what real paid for bale
            FSg did not make the release clause high enough

          • The release fee was agreed with Suarez and his agent. But yes Suarez should have been a £100 million transfer

          • and thats always been my problem it was not fsg refused to sell him te season before it was no one matched their pricetag

  1. They need to add he’s further up the pecking order than a certain 32 million pound striker and they’ll get a few more quid. He’s worth 10 million in today’s market, easy.

    • It doesn’t really matter what he’s worth in today’s market. If they wanted market value they should have signed him up and sold him on.

      As Burnleys CEO states in the article, this compensation is for reimbursement of training expenses. I suspect they will have a hard time documenting 10 million in training expenses.

  2. Sturridge
    Firmino
    Origi
    Benteke
    Ings

    The 5th string striker for a club in 7th place is worth the biggest fee in history? That must have been some development!

    • But he isn’t 5th string though is he? Going into the EPL season he was considered 3rd best. Besides, that shouldn’t factor into the valuation…

    • 5th because he’s got ACL…. the kids worth up to 10 Mil and taking into account how much we’ve spent on players that get slagged off by their own fans, week in week out, and not forgetting carrol! I don’t think they’re asking too much… Ings will be massive for us. I don’t hold it against Burnley for trying to get the max. In 5 years time they won’t be wanting us smug Liverpool fans laughing at them for the £5mil star we have

      • Ings might not even be the same player after the acl!look at Falcao,world class player before his acl injury,and now he aint worth s##t!!don’t count you’re chickens before they hatch mate,let’s wait and see how he plays after he returns from injury…

  3. A prime example of how money is ruining the game. The most expensive free transfer of all time. Really sums up the modern game actually, every bubble bursts and the Premier League will eventually go the way of Serie A.

  4. This beyond a joke, he was a free transfer, it’s should be compensation not a fee £2.5m or something like that sound reasonable £10m is closer to his current transfer value. Also he’s not 18-19 with massive potential he’s 23/24

    • Burnley are a joke though and prob poor now, so explains why they are typing 500 pages to scrounge a few extra million.

      • 500 page report haha! I just can’t seem to get past that BS! Their plan is to probably bore the judge into submission until he finally says enough of this!

        • If they wanted to do that they could have avoided the 500 pages and just shown season highlights for Manure. If I was a judge I would have awarded 20 million over watching that!

        • 500 page report on a player against 180 page dossier managerial job application ~ seems like overkill from Burnley here.

      • They turned him into a goal scoring PL player and my guess is they will have analytics to show his improvement too. So they’re being shrewd.

        • We’re offering £7mm which is more than fair given they failed to agree a contract with him. Asking for £12mm is just taking the P. Now I want the tribunal to set a price of £4mm just to stick it to Burnley.

      • They may be relatively poor this season, as they spent £7m (I think) on Ings’ replacement, Andre Grey, but they’re top of the Championship right now, so probably will be among the riches again next season.
        Their chairman is just holding on for as much as possible ‘cos he regrets not selling him & gambling on Ings’ goals to keep them up originally.

  5. Funny, I like Ingsy but 10m or 12m? Well, we should get arround 7m for Sinclair and 8m from whoever Joao Tex will play next season then, and we also need to open story about our past player, Tom Ince, where is he now Btw…

        • It’s simple really…things didn’t pan out for him as he maybe would have expected them to…not deemed Premier League worthy. Went to Hull, didn’t impress, got loaned back to Championship.

          • Ince made some dumb decisions after initially establishing himself as a quality Championship player. He should have jumped at the opportunity to prove himself at Inter, because that level of opportunity likely won’t be coming for him again

          • But there’s no telling what might have happened at Inter either really..I mean Suso went to AC Milan but I haven’t heard him doing anything out there. He was always going to be a English players with the obvious allure and aim of playing EPL far too high for him.

            I can’t believe LFC were trying to hard to get him 3 years back…maybe they just used Ince as a smokescreen to get the Coutinho deal done behind the scenes.

          • Yep, he might have flopped, but there was the opportunity to establish himself at a sleeping giant.

            The opportunities to return to Championship clubs would have been there years down the line regardless of how he fared out there, because he had already proved that he could cut it at that level. The opportunity to step up to the next level will be harder for him to come by without the “potential” of his youth to trade on though.

          • But it’s not like he chose to go to a Championship club over Inter. He chose a Premier League club in Hull City at the time. Personally I don’t think it means anything to move to a bigger club if you’re guaranteed to not have any playing time in the club in question. His chances of playing for Hull City would probably have been higher at the time..not to mention his game does probably suit English football more and it’s a safer bet.

          • Naw, he barely played at Hull too. And Inter were underperforming at the time so he may have had a slight chance.

            I just would be thought that the ambition is to play at as high a level as possible. That’s why I don’t knock the guys that went to City, like Sinclair. If things go wrong, it’s a couple of years at the bench plus the extra wages, before going back to where u started. If it goes well though, they have the chance to be actual stars…

          • You may have a point with Inter but I disagree with your overall point. Not all players have the chance to shine at a big club – buys like Sinclair, Rodwell were bad ones from the start given the gulf in quality in the rest of the team. It’s also about having a particular reputation as a club…as a professional player, if multiple Premier League clubs are interested, then they ought to factor in level of importance and game time as well. Not that I’m knocking them down for going for the money, but you could end up going from being a very promising player straight down to oblivion as a result. Things can change pretty quickly in football these days that way.

          • Yea, I understand the argument that they are making too big a jump and risking their on pitch development. My opinion has just been that big clubs are so concerned about ‘potential’ that if the player doesn’t make the move while they’re still young, then they’re unlikely to get the same offer again in the future.

            It is a tough decision to have to make though…

  6. In case someone’s wondering about how they come up with valuation on stuff like this and the factors and rules behind it – http :// www. theguardian. com /football/2015/jul/10/transfer-tribunal-danny-ings-liverpool-burnley

    First of all the status of the two clubs (transferor and transferee) is taken into account, then the age of the player. The terms on which the player was engaged by the transferor are examined, as is the amount of any fee paid upon registration, and the length of time the player was at the club.

    The terms of the new contracts offered to the player by each club are considered, then the player’s playing record is looked at, in terms of first-team appearances and international call-ups. Finally, interest shown by any other clubs is taken into account.

    • Clear as mud!
      They would have offered him a modest contract, us a larger one.
      He was a regular starter though and a goal scorer.

  7. I would expect no less as this is the only earthly reason this affair has been so drawn out. He will cost more than the current record total of £6.5M (Sturridge from Man City to Chelsea, 2010).

  8. “The value is based on training compensation, not the market value of a player”
    “…….what player did you produce at the point he departed your club”

    Well what a load of crap. How is the “player produced” judged if not by his market value?
    So a club trains, develops, nurtures and invests millions in a young player (not Ings) and at the end they have a player barely good enough for the Conference – £10million earned apparently. Also if market value is of no consequence then why are we constantly hearing that Spurs offered £12m?
    This is not aimed at Danny Ings, a good player, but at the insanity of the “rationale” that Burnley are due a “record amount”,

  9. Is it wise for Burnley to be arguing this in the court of public opinion whilst the case is being deliberated at the tribunal?

    Meanwhile, we have kept our counsel on the matter.

    Hope the tribunal takes all these public airings into account when deciding. They shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from free media publicity and sweeping statements on the topic like this.

    • Burnley are going to scrape some more comments. They are aiming for a record-long 600 pages of comments on a player they developed and let go for free.

    • Strongly agree, has smacked of opportunism from them in the beginning. As soon as it became apparent he was going to Liverpool Spurs are reported to have offered ridiculous money for a player with 6 months left on his contract. Now they are using the media to sway public opinion? Burnleys Ceo would have being better placed had he put premier league wages on the table when Burnley were promoted,would his contract have run down if Burnley had paid him accordingly?

  10. 500 page document sounds like the 115-page report against Suarez.

    I’m sure it weighs quite a bit, but that doesn’t make it true.

  11. Hopefully he recovers fully from the injury , I know one thing what ever we pay for him he loves our club and wears the shirt with pride,

  12. Cant help but feel Burnley are trying to squeeze every last penny out of this deal. From the Spurs bid when Ings had less than 6 months on his contract, when it was widely recognised he had decided to sign for Liverpool to this latest attempt at hyping his price- it smacks a bit too much of opportunism for me. Its not as if he was born and bread burnley, they signed him from Bornmouth. Of course they should be compensated but 10m is just opportunism. If they had offered the player better terms before entering the final year of his contract, would they have had to go to tribunal?

  13. Market value has nothing to do with the final valuation of a player

    The Professional Football Compensation Committee regulations stipulates that the following costs 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.

    So the fact [if that is what it is] that Totenham offered £12m is irrelivant.

    • They signed him in 2011 so 4 years of compensation. They will be lucky to get 5 million based on that criteria. Personally i think they have done themselves no favours in how they conducted themselves.

      • By way of comparison, Studge was with citeh for 6 years. [2003 – 2009]

        “The PFCC decided on 14 January 2010 that Chelsea would pay an initial fee of £3.5 million, with additional payments of £500,000 after each of 10, 20, 30 and 40 first-team competitive appearances. There would also be a further payment of £1 million if Sturridge made a full international appearance, and Manchester City in addition would receive 15 percent of any sell-on fee if Sturridge was transferred”

        An upfront fee of £10m for Ings, based upon that precident looks optomistic.

  14. If becoming an international player – which happened after the transfer – should be factored into the valuation, then so too should the injury and number of games missed.

    It is pretty ridiculous that a fee hasn’t been agreed before a player has been signed. Is the club allowed to back out and just say no, we’re not willing to go as high as whatever the tribunal values him at?!

      • I get that much. I’m saying that it is ridiculous that a deal has been agreed and goods delivered with no fee in place, such that the buyers could suddenly find themselves having to spend far more than they had set aside

          • In this case, the risk is all with the buyer. Burnley were going to lose the player regardless and would get the same fee wherever he went (apparently). Liverpool on the other hand *could* have decided to go elsewhere if they knew what the fee was and decided that it was too high.

          • When you put it that way, we are taking a big risk, especially as Dings is injured – we can only hope he comes back as strong as before. On the other hand Burnley might have got £12m from Totenham [if that bid was for real]. They might have to settle for much less.

          • Yea, that’s where they took their risk, in rejecting any offers in the hope that he could help them avoid relegation.

            I don’t see why Burnley should “get to have their cake, and eat it too”. If the priority was maximising the transfer fee, they should have sorted out a sale while the player was under contract.

          • Had Burnley avoided the drop, then the gamble might have paid off. Dings might have signed a new contract with them. But they didn’t and Dings wanted away – that’s football.

          • yea, exactly – Burnley took a gamble, they lost and should have to live with that. It shouldn’t be Liverpool’s responsibility to cover the loss for them (just as it wasn’t Real’s when they snatched Owen and McManaman from us for a pittance)

Leave a Reply