The Daily ITK Discussion Thread - 26th May 2015

[thebenjamin]

If Ings has got a formal deal in place, it has to be to Sociadad or elsewhere abroad.

He's not allowed to talk to other English clubs until 1 July, unless Burnley agree a fee with them first.

No but he could've decided to join Liverpool, sorted out personal terms, bought a property in Merseyside, got his kids into school etc. Just because the deal between the clubs isn't signed doesn't mean the move isn't agreed.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

No but he could've decided to join Liverpool, sorted out personal terms, bought a property in Merseyside, got his kids into school etc. Just because the deal between the clubs isn't signed doesn't mean the move isn't agreed.

Yeah, I've heard that once kids go to a Merseyside school, it's impossible for them to go somewhere else because they are so happy.

Just ask @Toela65

 

[SHaRD]

No but he could've decided to join Liverpool, sorted out personal terms, bought a property in Merseyside, got his kids into school etc. Just because the deal between the clubs isn't signed doesn't mean the move isn't agreed.

Well if Burnley decide to sell him elsewhere, that's tough. Discussing personal terms with another club whilst still in contract is against FIFA rules.

 

[gazzeh]

Well if Burnley decide to sell him elsewhere, that's tough. Discussing personal terms with another club whilst still in contract is against FIFA rules.

They all do it. They don't care about rules when there is this much money involved

 

[thebenjamin]

Well if Burnley decide to sell him elsewhere, that's tough. Discussing personal terms with another club whilst still in contract is against FIFA rules.

He can go wherever he wants, Burnley have no say in it as he's decided to run his contract down.

On the basis you're describing, every single football transfer would be illegal.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

@mikeeegreen please stop posting like that, it makes you look like you either have info or are repeatring a media story without quoting the source, both of which create confusion. Ta.

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

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.

At the end of the day there is plenty of fish in the sea. Ings would only be one of the targets (if indeed he is) that Poch would be looking towards adding to the team. No great miss if he ends up playing for Rogers anyway but after looking at the success Rogers has had with Ballotelli and Lambert i'd be taking a closer look at that Club than just at my wage packet if i were Ings.

 

[JamieSpursCommunityUser]

The £12m Ings move (if true) is about the Trippier sell on clause.

My hunch is we're in cahoots with Burnley, just like we did with Davies and Vorm.

If we got both (doubtful) it will be £12m for Ings, and very little for Trippier.

Or we don't get Ings, but make Liverpool pay more.

Basically testing Liverpool's real desire for Ings, hoping they cave.

Do they want him because he's a cheap benchwarmer, or because he's good and would start.

If they don't match it we can say to the player - do they really want you?

Worth a punt.

 

[mikeeegreen]

@mikeeegreen please stop posting like that, it makes you look like you either have info or are repeatring a media story without quoting the source, both of which create confusion. Ta.

Sorry mate!

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

Well I definitely think something has happened, because it's gone from Ings definitely going to Liverpool, to them 'only' being strong favourites.

It's a play on words purely to keep your balls tingling..............

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

Well if Burnley decide to sell him elsewhere, that's tough. Discussing personal terms with another club whilst still in contract is against FIFA rules.

Yup see here for evidence of dem Fhiever rules:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32895057

 

[SHaRD]

He can go wherever he wants, Burnley have no say in it as he's decided to run his contract down.

On the basis you're describing, every single football transfer would be illegal.

The rules are different for young players. The Bosman ruling applies differently for players under 23. The clubs are much more protected.

The only player we've bought in similar circumstances was Zeki Fryers, and remember we had to park him in Belgium for 6 months to circumvent the regulations (well worth the effort there!).

 

[SHaRD]

The £12m Ings move (if true) is about the Trippier sell on clause.

My hunch is we're in cahoots with Burnley, just like we did with Davies and Vorm.

If we got both (doubtful) it will be £12m for Ings, and very little for Trippier.

Or we don't get Ings, but make Liverpool pay more.

Basically testing Liverpool's real desire for Ings, hoping they cave.

Do they want him because he's a cheap benchwarmer, or because he's good and would start.

If they don't match it we can say to the player - do they really want you?

Worth a punt.

Exactly my reading of it.

I think Liverpool will cave in and keep their powder dry for Benteke

£12m is just enough to make them think twice (but still an excellent deal for us). A very clever play from Levy/Baldini

 

[SpartanSpur]

This Ings thing is coming across a bit like Storage Hunters, we like it, realise it's slipping away and at the very least want the other guy (bindippers) to pay over the top for it.

Interesting tactic, and with the Trippier situation could get interesting. Clearly we want Ings regardless of being cheap or not, will be interesting to see if they feel the same...

 

[thebenjamin]

The rules are different for young players. The Bosman ruling applies differently for players under 23. The clubs are much more protected.

The only player we've bought in similar circumstances was Zeki Fryers, and remember we had to park him in Belgium for 6 months to circumvent the regulations (well worth the effort there!).

But Burnley still have zero say in which club he joins. They are just protected in that he won't go for nothing.

 

[Lilbaz]

The rules are different for young players. The Bosman ruling applies differently for players under 23. The clubs are much more protected.

The only player we've bought in similar circumstances was Zeki Fryers, and remember we had to park him in Belgium for 6 months to circumvent the regulations (well worth the effort there!).

The reason we parked him in Belgium was because we didn't want to pay the £6m development fee to Man Utd. Foreign clubs don't have to pay it. We bought him off them for £3m saving ourselves £3m.

 

[Lilbaz]

If Ings wants to go to Liverpool it does not matter what we do. They will just wait for his contract to run out and pay off the development fee. It doesn't matter how much we bid.

 

[SHaRD]

But Burnley still have zero say in which club he joins. They are just protected in that he won't go for nothing.

If Burnley accept the bid, we'll get exclusive access to him for the next 5 weeks to discuss terms

Liverpool might then move on to inferior targets like Benteke, which will worry the Ings camp

And once it comes to July, they will likely still end up having to pay the £12m for him.

We've ensured Liverpool have to respond with a match bid, or by walking away

 

[Lilbaz]

If Burnley accept the bid, we'll get exclusive access to him for the next 5 weeks to discuss terms

Liverpool might then move on to inferior targets like Benteke, which will worry the Ings camp

And once it comes to July, they will likely still end up having to pay the £12m for him.

We've ensured Liverpool have to respond with a match bid, or by walking away

They will not have to pay £12m for him. I posted the link to the rules for development fees acouple of pages back.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

Fuck Twitter.