Wells
-
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:24 pm
- Been Liked: 131 times
- Has Liked: 153 times
Wells
Was Wells included in vydra transfer? Some derby fans seem to think, we paid £7m plus wells. Or £11m if he does not agree terms.
-
- Posts: 7065
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2238 times
- Has Liked: 1617 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Wells
All I know was, on (I think) BBC Sport, it was said it was a cash and player deal. I just can't see that straight swap myth being true unless someone at Derby has taken leave of their senses.TomtheClaret wrote:Was Wells included in vydra transfer? Some derby fans seem to think, we paid £7m plus wells. Or £11m if he does not agree terms.
-
- Posts: 3916
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
- Been Liked: 833 times
- Has Liked: 1324 times
- Location: burnley
Re: Wells
Hope the op is right as much for wells as us. However if true it makes our lack of spending on a winger even more odd.
-
- Posts: 4382
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1825 times
- Has Liked: 930 times
Re: Wells
Can't find the tweet but Nixon or Boden they were two separate deals.
Obviously the Wells one never made it over the line for one reason or another.
Obviously the Wells one never made it over the line for one reason or another.
-
- Posts: 5870
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:39 pm
- Been Liked: 1695 times
- Has Liked: 2531 times
- Location: Rawtenstall
Re: Wells
Not being on the bench v Aberdeen suggested to me he was on his way somewhere. Very curious situation for all concerned really.KRBFC wrote:He clearly isn't wanted, couldn't even make the bench against Aberdeen. Head scratching signing really, it was never going to work out especially with the lack of chance he's been given.
-
- Posts: 7310
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Wells
So far as I'm aware there's nothing to stop this deal going ahead in the next few weeks. EPL teams can sign players up until the end of August, so we could still potentially sell or loan out any of our squad to a Championship team (or below).CombatClaret wrote:Can't find the tweet but Nixon or Boden they were two separate deals.
Obviously the Wells one never made it over the line for one reason or another.
-
- Posts: 67783
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32405 times
- Has Liked: 5273 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wells
We can't sell to a Football League club now. We can still sell to teams in other countries but can only loan players to Football League clubs.nil_desperandum wrote:So far as I'm aware there's nothing to stop this deal going ahead in the next few weeks. EPL teams can sign players up until the end of August, so we could still potentially sell or loan out any of our squad to a Championship team (or below).
-
- Posts: 7310
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Wells
Yes, so theoretically we can loan him (or anyone else) to any club with compulsory purchase in January, similar to Ings to Southampton?ClaretTony wrote:We can't sell to a Football League club now. We can still sell to teams in other countries but can only loan players to Football League clubs.
-
- Posts: 67783
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32405 times
- Has Liked: 5273 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wells
No idea why the Ings deal was loan initially because there was nothing to differentiate between permanent and loan signings within the Premier League window. But yes, we can loan a player out to a Football League club with the potential for them to sign him in a future window.nil_desperandum wrote:Yes, so theoretically we can loan him (or anyone else) to any club with compulsory purchase in January, similar to Ings to Southampton?
-
- Posts: 7310
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Wells
Re: Ings.ClaretTony wrote:No idea why the Ings deal was loan initially because there was nothing to differentiate between permanent and loan signings within the Premier League window. But yes, we can loan a player out to a Football League club with the potential for them to sign him in a future window.
By splitting it into a "loan" fee and then a transfer fee, won't it reduce their liability to us?
(i.e. We'll only get 20% of the transfer fee, so Liverpool will have a net gain).
-
- Posts: 7310
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Wells
Why not permanent in January?NickBFC wrote:I can see he will leave on loan with view to permanent deal in the summer (somewhere). I wouldn't be letting anyone else leave at the moment with our busy schedule.
Re: Wells
Could well do, seems the fashion to have a season loan before signing full time for some reason. Whatever the situation, we need to move him on, and he needs regular football somewhere. I don't think he's a bad player but it was a baffling signing at the time, and still is.nil_desperandum wrote:Why not permanent in January?
Re: Wells
If we had got our wide man target, it would have probably happened, however I think Walters will act as our 3rd choice wide man, and when Brady is back our 4th choice.whiffa wrote:Friend of mine works at Deepdale and has seen Jon Walters there in the past fortnight so possible loan deal to PNE? Was surprised to see him start against Instanbul if this was the case.
None of the natural 3 wide men make me think they can make 35 premier league starts, never mind the possibility of 90 minutes every Thursday and Sunday.
We could easily play 50+ games this season, the failure to get in wide man number 4 will mean square pegs in round holes quite a lot.
This user liked this post: whiffa
-
- Posts: 67783
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32405 times
- Has Liked: 5273 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wells
No idea but I'd assume that we'll get 20% of what Liverpool receive in total over the £6.5 million we've already received.nil_desperandum wrote:Re: Ings.
By splitting it into a "loan" fee and then a transfer fee, won't it reduce their liability to us?
(i.e. We'll only get 20% of the transfer fee, so Liverpool will have a net gain).
-
- Posts: 7310
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Wells
I've no idea either, but otherwise why split the deal into "loan fee" and "transfer" fee, when they could simply have a transfer fee paid in instalments?ClaretTony wrote:No idea but I'd assume that we'll get 20% of what Liverpool receive in total over the £6.5 million we've already received.
My suspicion is that legally we will have signed up to 20% of any future TRANSFER profit, and that we won't see any percentage of the "loan" fee.
-
- Posts: 5548
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1447 times
- Has Liked: 1229 times
- Location: Ferkham Hall
Re: Wells
Could make a court case. It’s semantics. The commonly known loan is really a temporary transfer and in this case a fee is being received for such.nil_desperandum wrote:I've no idea either, but otherwise why split the deal into "loan fee" and "transfer" fee, when they could simply have a transfer fee paid in instalments?
My suspicion is that legally we will have signed up to 20% of any future TRANSFER profit, and that we won't see any percentage of the "loan" fee.
-
- Posts: 5548
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1447 times
- Has Liked: 1229 times
- Location: Ferkham Hall
Re: Wells
With his pace I’m surprised Wells has never been tried out wide.
Probably because his defensive ability is sub-standard.
Walters put a good shift in, last night, but looked paceless with the ball.
Probably because his defensive ability is sub-standard.
Walters put a good shift in, last night, but looked paceless with the ball.
-
- Posts: 1313
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:12 pm
- Been Liked: 603 times
- Has Liked: 420 times
Re: Wells
It could be a move to reduce the payment to us, not sure on that one.ClaretTony wrote:No idea but I'd assume that we'll get 20% of what Liverpool receive in total over the £6.5 million we've already received.
Other reasons could be
They can include a £5m payment in their accounts for this year and the remainder in next years accounts. Splitting the payment over two financial years might benefit them in someway.
They won't have to negotiate personal terms with the player until next year, if that hasn't been done at the outset.
Only the first one relates to us and we can't do much about it if they have conspired to screw us over.
Wells and Walters
We need to keep both until the next window now. Walters can do a job on the right wing as he showed yesterday and we could even find a spot for Wells on the left of midfield if we are reduced to "square pegs in round holes".
Wells on the left wing might be better than taking Barnes away from his most effective position, but moving Taylor up is another possibility.
We might have to buy a big box of spanners this season, because the need to bolt together a first team could arise more than once.
-
- Posts: 7310
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Wells
Surely that's only the same as paying a "transfer" fee in instalments?Long Time Lurker wrote:It could be a move to reduce the payment to us, not sure on that one.
Other reasons could be
They can include a £5m payment in their accounts for this year and the remainder in next years accounts. Splitting the payment over two financial years might benefit them in someway.
.
-
- Posts: 7310
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Wells
Yes.Hipper wrote:So just to clarify, Wells is at this moment still at Burnley?
-
- Posts: 67783
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32405 times
- Has Liked: 5273 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wells
We didn't sign up to anything though, it was a tribunal decision. But I believe we are entitled to 20% of any profit Liverpool make on him so that suggests it should include any loan fee. When I get the opportunity though I'll certainly ask the question.nil_desperandum wrote:I've no idea either, but otherwise why split the deal into "loan fee" and "transfer" fee, when they could simply have a transfer fee paid in instalments?
My suspicion is that legally we will have signed up to 20% of any future TRANSFER profit, and that we won't see any percentage of the "loan" fee.
This user liked this post: nil_desperandum
-
- Posts: 3145
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:22 pm
- Been Liked: 1739 times
- Has Liked: 271 times
Re: Wells
Linked with a loan move to QPR tonight.
Re: Wells
The agreement is generally much more complex than a line saying 20% of the transfer. That should then be defined, something like any transfer profit generated whilst the player's registration is held by Liverpool FC and profit also defined. The definition is also expanded to cover the event of things like the deal being non-monetary (e.g. a player in exchange)nil_desperandum wrote:Re: Ings.
By splitting it into a "loan" fee and then a transfer fee, won't it reduce their liability to us?
(i.e. We'll only get 20% of the transfer fee, so Liverpool will have a net gain).
-
- Posts: 2653
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:26 pm
- Been Liked: 505 times
- Has Liked: 245 times
Re: Wells
They desp need a strikerWalt wrote:Sounds like he's off to QPR.
-
- Posts: 4486
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:29 am
- Been Liked: 990 times
- Has Liked: 3266 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Wells
WELLS IN QPR MEDICAL
Burnley’s Nahki Wells is undergoing a medical at QPR today ahead of completing a season-long loan switch, according to Sky sources.
The striker has been in discussions over the move over the last few days as Rangers also look to bring in Tomer Hemed on loan from Brighton.
Wells is set to join on a year-long loan deal that is understood not to include any option or obligation to buy him permanently.
Burnley’s Nahki Wells is undergoing a medical at QPR today ahead of completing a season-long loan switch, according to Sky sources.
The striker has been in discussions over the move over the last few days as Rangers also look to bring in Tomer Hemed on loan from Brighton.
Wells is set to join on a year-long loan deal that is understood not to include any option or obligation to buy him permanently.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Has Liked: 151 times
Re: Wells
Well i am probably in the minority here but I hope he does really well for them (for his sake not QPR's) I would have liked him to have had a proper chance here.
-
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:01 am
- Been Liked: 41 times
- Has Liked: 31 times
Re: Wells
They haven't got the money to make a commitment to buy
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Wells
Not if he has a blinder in the Championship. Clubs will be wanting to buy him next summer.DCWat wrote:Shame there is no buy clause. Assume he will be in the last year of his contract after the loan and any value will drop further
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:54 am
- Been Liked: 29 times
Re: Wells
Surely anyone can see the benefit of him doing well there means that we can get a transfer fee for him next summer and therefor would want him to do well.snapcrackleandpop wrote:Well i am probably in the minority here but I hope he does really well for them (for his sake not QPR's) I would have liked him to have had a proper chance here.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Has Liked: 151 times
Re: Wells
You're missing the point.KellyClaret wrote:Surely anyone can see the benefit of him doing well there means that we can get a transfer fee for him next summer and therefor would want him to do well.
-
- Posts: 6952
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:25 pm
- Been Liked: 1486 times
- Has Liked: 1847 times
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Wells
Better than what we had in the youth, and was there incase of injuries. Nobody knew whether we'd get those injuries or not, so it was simply a sensible 'just in case'.Woodleyclaret wrote:I never understand why we bought him originally
-
- Posts: 3956
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1239 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: Wells
I’d hardly call it head scratching. He has clearly not done enough in training to be good enough to get into the team. I heard he is not the best trainer and when you see clips of him chewing gum whilst training it is likely that Dyche has not been impressedKRBFC wrote:He clearly isn't wanted, couldn't even make the bench against Aberdeen. Head scratching signing really, it was never going to work out especially with the lack of chance he's been given.
Re: Wells
Yeah that's the reason, blame the chewing gum.Hibsclaret wrote:I’d hardly call it head scratching. He has clearly not done enough in training to be good enough to get into the team. I heard he is not the best trainer and when you see clips of him chewing gum whilst training it is likely that Dyche has not been impressed
-
- Posts: 3956
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1239 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: Wells
Lol. Good to see you can read. Rumour has it he’s a bad trainer. Just pick out the one comment.KRBFC wrote:Yeah that's the reason, blame the chewing gum.
It’s like when you employ any staff you only find out when you work with them that they don’t always fit in
Re: Wells
But we are always told we put all the effort into the fine details when recruiting players, surely someone would have told Dyche he's a bad trainer. I think you're reading too much into it, he's not good enough and never was good enough for PL level and that's why he hasn't featured much.Hibsclaret wrote:Lol. Good to see you can read. Rumour has it he’s a bad trainer. Just pick out the one comment.
It’s like when you employ any staff you only find out when you work with them that they don’t always fit in
Re: Wells
He was injured when we bought himFactualFrank wrote:Better than what we had in the youth, and was there incase of injuries. Nobody knew whether we'd get those injuries or not, so it was simply a sensible 'just in case'.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Wells
You miss the point. It was a purchase incase of injuries later - not immediately.joey13 wrote:He was injured when we bought him
-
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:56 pm
- Been Liked: 225 times
- Has Liked: 248 times
Re: Wells
Surplus to requirements at huddersfield should have told us something....five million pounds...wow...got to be up there with juke for most shocking transfer up front, strange we’ve never seen him start a match tho!
Last edited by Giftonsnoidea on Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:56 pm
- Been Liked: 225 times
- Has Liked: 248 times
Re: Wells
So its reported as 20m -6m so we get 3m off liverpool?ClaretTony wrote:We didn't sign up to anything though, it was a tribunal decision. But I believe we are entitled to 20% of any profit Liverpool make on him so that suggests it should include any loan fee. When I get the opportunity though I'll certainly ask the question.
Maybe the loan fee is to shaft us of that portion of sell on, could be