The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 26th May 2015

[Sandro30]

No, but surely the other way round is feasible. Overpay on Ings, so City get little money from the Trippier deal.

But why £12m? The tribunal fee is roughly £5-6m and Trippier has a clause at £3.5m. Burnley I believe have to pay a percentage on any fee over £1.2m. If we were to pay £1.2m, why are we paying a combined £3m+ more than needed? The whole bid and fee make zero sense whatsoever.

 

[Mister Jez]

But why £12m? The tribunal fee is roughly £5-6m and Trippier has a clause at £3.5m. Burnley I believe have to pay a percentage on any fee over £1.2m. If we were to pay £1.2m, why are we paying a combined £3m+ more than needed? The whole bid and fee make zero sense whatsoever.

It makes perfect sense, if we make a bid another team has to match that bid, we are just gazumping the opposition.

 

[RicOfPeace]

if we sell or loan out Pritchard we are stupid.
been crying out for a player like him all season!

 

[bubble07]

If we thought he was worth 12m why didn't we bid 12m in January. I'ts not like he has scored shit loads since January, in fact far from it

 

[SHaRD]

Yes. If JJ says we're not signing someone, we're not signing someone. I've been on here long enough to know he is easily the best ITK around.

Check back 12 months.

He said we'd missed out on Davies - 48 hours before he signed.

He did though post 24 hours before he signed saying we'd gone back in with another offer.

 

[Chris12]

Check back 12 months.

He said we'd missed out on Davies - 48 hours before he signed.

He did though post 24 hours before he signed saying we'd gone back in with another offer.

So what you're saying is that he was actually right

 

[SHaRD]

So what you're saying is that he was actually right

What I'm saying is that his post yesterday morning is probably quite out of date now following yesterday's activity.

That saying he thinks we've missed out isn't the necessarily the end, as it's exactly the same thing happened last summer (Ings and Trippier being this year's Davies and Vorm).

 

[Chris12]

What I'm saying is that his post yesterday morning is probably quite out of date now following yesterday's activity.

That saying he thinks we've missed out isn't the necessarily the end, as it's exactly the same thing happened last summer (Ings and Trippier being this year's Davies and Vorm).

What activity? LFC links to Benteke? Doubt that'll change much that quickly.

 

[SHaRD]

What activity? LFC links to Benteke? Doubt that'll change much that quickly.

The reported £12m bid to gazump Liverpool

It can't go to tribunal if Burnley accept an offer. Liverpool would have to match our bid.

 

[Lilbaz]

Seems like Utd have agreed a fee for Gaitan.

 

[gazzeh]

Seems like Utd have agreed a fee for Gaitan.

But obviously according to the media, they'll get Bale too. #not

 

[dude573]

The Sky News/Sky Bet relationship is a curious thing indeed. I also find it hard to believe that Levy would ever consider paying 12 million for a player who is out of contract in June, but considering our interest in Trippier may be real, could the £12 million be a combined fee for both?

I said yesterday that I still think we may end up pinching Ings, but a lot of this may be down to the fact as some suggested in this thread that Liverpool have turned to Benteke?

 

[Gbspurs]

Seems like Utd have agreed a fee for Gaitan.

Don't really care who utd sign as long as its not Bale.

 

[AX-Spur]

Don't really care who utd sign as long as its not Bale.

Or Lloris...

 

[Lilbaz]

Don't really care who utd sign as long as its not Bale.

Only posted as ITK had us linked with Argentinians a couple of days ago and Gaitan was one of the names thrown about.

 

[Chris12]

The reported £12m bid to gazump Liverpool

It can't go to tribunal if Burnley accept an offer. Liverpool would have to match our bid.

Except Ings could decline to come.

And again, I trust JJ over "Sky Sources"

 

[mill]

The reported £12m bid to gazump Liverpool

It can't go to tribunal if Burnley accept an offer. Liverpool would have to match our bid.

Not unless Ings turns us down sees out his contract then signs for Liverpool

 

[SHaRD]

Except Ings could decline to come.

And again, I trust JJ over "Sky Sources"

I still think Liverpool would have to pay £12m though then. The rules are different for U23s - the normal Bosman principles don't apply.

I thought Sky sources was what they had read in the Independent( where the £12m bid story originated)?

 

[bubble07]

Making a 12m bid makes no sense at all when a player is out of contract in 1 week. If we want Ings we need to pay HIM more cash

 

[Lilbaz]

Making a 12m bid makes no sense at all when a player is out of contract in 1 week. If we want Ings we need to pay HIM more cash

Who knows. £6m might be a signing on fee.