Danny Ings to Liverpool

yankspurs

“We’re not a selling club”
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
24,896
First of all the Press Association have looked into it and reported that the Ings tribunal fee will prob be £6m tops. The Spurs big bid thing has happened before with Tom Ince and it made no difference to his tribunal fee. They also say going against Burnley is that they've only had him for 4 years and he started his development at Bournemouth so that will make fee a little smaller.

Secondly Milner is on £100kpw basic. The rest is his signing on fee that is paid over the duration of his contract which, because its bigger than a usual signing on fee due to him coming on a bosman, has artificially inflated his wages. This doesn't cost LFC anymore than if they had paid a transfer fee for the player. His wages keep being mentioned but missing this context everytime.

Finally, the same applies to Ings as does to Milner. His wages are artificially inflated by an unusually big signing on fee. His basic is believed to be around £50kpw which is about the usual for LFC. All in all the club is spending any more money on the 2 players than they would do on any other player that would have required a transfer fee with a good chunk of it up front.

For once, with these 2 players, Liverpool have certainly not been "fleeced" (which makes a change). For once they've actually got 2 decent deals all in all. Milner is a proven player and Ings would have to be a massive failure for Liverpool not to, at least, make all their money back when selling him on due to expected low tribunal fee that under values him.

P.S. If you don't think Reds know their new place in football hierarchy or have accepted their downfall, all you have to do is read the #LFC on Twitter and you will see the pessimism, the complete lack of any real expectations under FSG and BR and the acceptance that their is no chance any top player would countenance a move to Liverpool any time soon. Stop reading RAWK.
Toela, you do realize that a signing bonus being paid over the length of the contract is not really a signing bonus at all but is actually part of weekly wages? A signing on fee/signing bonus, whatever you wanna call it, is when a player gets money up front for signing. Any money paid out over the duration of a contract are wages, except for money paid to a player for reaching certain expectations.

6m to Burnley is probably a fair price. But 50k/wk wages for Ings is high, whether its the usual for the club, or not. That's like saying had Ings gone to City or Chelsea, a 100k/wk+ wages would be fine since that's the average for those clubs. Kane is on 50k/wk now. There is no way in hell Ings should be on the same wages as Kane, regardless of club.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
13,556
Secondly Milner is on £100kpw basic. The rest is his signing on fee that is paid over the duration of his contract which, because its bigger than a usual signing on fee due to him coming on a bosman, has artificially inflated his wages. This doesn't cost LFC anymore than if they had paid a transfer fee for the player. His wages keep being mentioned but missing this context everytime.

Finally, the same applies to Ings as does to Milner. His wages are artificially inflated by an unusually big signing on fee. His basic is believed to be around £50kpw which is about the usual for LFC. All in all the club is spending any more money on the 2 players than they would do on any other player that would have required a transfer fee with a good chunk of it up front.

For once, with these 2 players, Liverpool have certainly not been "fleeced" (which makes a change). For once they've actually got 2 decent deals all in all. Milner is a proven player and Ings would have to be a massive failure for Liverpool not to, at least, make all their money back when selling him on due to expected low tribunal fee that under values him.
However you twist the numbers the fact remains that you are paying a lot of money for Milner. At his age you are not going to be able to command much of a transfer fee if any for him.

Milner is proven and will do well for the club though.

Ings is an interesting one. I believe he's a good player and will go onto become even better with the right guidance. A lot of money being spent on a young player's wages though. If he doesn't work out he'll be an expensive deal regardless of the cheaper fee via tribunal.

A risk worth taking imo.
 
Top