Danny Ings (FW) to Crystal Palace, Newcastle

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
10,570
Likes
6,915
#62

Strictly Armchair

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
1,198
Likes
4,699
#65
Don't know if raised yet but what about 30 mil plus Danny to Palace for Zaha?
Big fat NO from me to that one. Zaha is brainless. Wonderful athlete but how many times does he fail to make the right pass or blast the ball high and wide of the goal? I also remember a couple of incidents in our match at Palace last season where he flew past his man only for his next touch to knock it over the touchline for a throw-in when he had space to run into.

There's a good reason why a player approaching his prime years is still at Palace.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
10,570
Likes
6,915
#66
The fact that Zaha would cost over 4 times more than Shaqiri should make people stop and think. Quite like Zaha but he would definitely be overpriced. He played significant time last season up front where he scored all his goals from and got most of his assists. Played for Palace who, still terrible, were a lot better at attacking than Stoke. Still for similar goal contributions to Shaqiri. Also people keep talking about him like he's a developing kid. He's only 13 months younger than Shaqiri who gets talked about like a grizzled veteran.
 

redbj

hurry up, July 1st, let's get the show on the road
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
17,077
Likes
12,889
#68
The fact that Zaha would cost over 4 times more than Shaqiri should make people stop and think. Quite like Zaha but he would definitely be overpriced. He played significant time last season up front where he scored all his goals from and got most of his assists. Played for Palace who, still terrible, were a lot better at attacking than Stoke. Still for similar goal contributions to Shaqiri. Also people keep talking about him like he's a developing kid. He's only 13 months younger than Shaqiri who gets talked about like a grizzled veteran.

Shaqiri lived a lot in those 13 months though....
 

Walshy07

In Klopp we trust
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
643
#69
Amazed he hasn’t left yet.
But I guess spending £20m on an injury prone player with hardly any football for 2 years is a huge risk.
 

geebo

Geebo Age unknown !
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
9,552
Likes
5,197
#71
24 mil for Ings !! we arent just buying well but selling well too ! cost 18.3 mil, which is 15.7 mil saving, and we get Shaqiri for 14.7 mil as a replacement and a big upgrade !
 

Mascot88

Yours for £1m. Need to make room for Dean Saunders
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
18,411
Likes
30,654
#73
20% goes to Burnley,still glad to get what we put in come back.Hopefully he can kickstart his career.Always felt he could have done well with us but just didn't have the opportunity due to his injuries.
I thought Ings fee was agreed at tribunal. Would a tribunal set a sell on clause?

Genuine question. I don’t know.
 

Mascot88

Yours for £1m. Need to make room for Dean Saunders
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
18,411
Likes
30,654
#77
How dare you question Wikipedia

Edit:20% of whatever profit we make
Apparently that comes from Andy Hunter, who is reliable.

I just think it’s a bit strange that a Tribunal panel would be arsed about sell on fees and clauses. I would they’d have just gone ‘He’s worth this - NEXT’.
 

mattyhurst

TIA Regular
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
13,075
Likes
9,123
#79
Still 80% of 24m for Ings is pretty nice. Almost 20m for a player we got for a lot less and hasn't been able to play much.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
9,847
Likes
19,270
#82
I thought Ings fee was agreed at tribunal. Would a tribunal set a sell on clause?

Genuine question. I don’t know.
Apparently that comes from Andy Hunter, who is reliable.

I just think it’s a bit strange that a Tribunal panel would be arsed about sell on fees and clauses. I would they’d have just gone ‘He’s worth this - NEXT’.
Yes mate, in fact setting out contingency payments and determining a sell-on % are increasingly becoming their focus rather than determining high up front 'compensation' fees. It's a way of making the process less vulnerable to a legal challenge something that was increasingly becoming a concern.

It's still unlawful mind but it does weaken the restraint of trade arguments.
 

Gone Kloppo

Formerly known as Ʒan
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
1,686
Likes
2,731
#83
Still 80% of 24m for Ings is pretty nice. Almost 20m for a player we got for a lot less and hasn't been able to play much.
If what RedSeven says is true, then Burnley are getting 24-8 = 16 x 20% = 3.2m. We make a £12.8m profit on a guy who's made 14 appearances (probably less than a handful of those have been more than half a game) and has had 2 knee reconstructions at the club for a total of 4 serious knee injuries in his career. I have assumed above he made the £1.5m in addons, though maybe not.

I'll echo what has been said already that he's a fantastic bloke and hope he can get his career back on track, wherever that may be.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
9,847
Likes
19,270
#84
If what RedSeven says is true, then Burnley are getting 24-8 = 16 x 20% = 3.2m. We make a £12.8m profit on a guy who's made 14 appearances (probably less than a handful of those have been more than half a game) and has had 2 knee reconstructions at the club for a total of 4 serious knee injuries in his career. I have assumed above he made the £1.5m in addons, though maybe not.

I'll echo what has been said already that he's a fantastic bloke and hope he can get his career back on track, wherever that may be.
RedSeven's correct - it was reported that way by James Pearce at the time of the decision

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...s/revealed-liverpools-danny-ings-fee-11258765

I'd be surprised if the contingencies have become payable (although it depends on whether they are automatically deemed payable upon onward transfer and that would be part of the detail of the PFCC decision). It could be 24-6.5 = 17.5 x 20% = £3.5m so we make a £14m profit on Ings (less the wages we've paid over three years).

At the very least getting Ings in has probably been cost-neutral for us so he will have had as little impact on the balance sheet as he has done on the pitch, unfortunately.
 

Gone Kloppo

Formerly known as Ʒan
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
1,686
Likes
2,731
#85
. It could be 24-6.5 = 17.5 x 20% = £3.5m so we make a £14m profit on Ings (less the wages we've paid over three years).
Thank you! The wages are nearly always forgotten about (including by me evidently!) when talking about 'profit'.