Martyn Waghorn’s former club Rangers would receive a significant windfall should the Blues striker move on to Derby County or elsewhere this summer.

According to the Daily Record, the Ibrox club inserted a 10 per cent of profit sell-on clause when the 28-year-old moved to the Blues for a bargain £250,000 last August.

Derby are in talks with the Blues regarding an £8 million deal, which therefore could ultimately be worth £775,000.

However, the deal the Rams are currently proposing is understood to be an initial £5 million up front with the rest after clauses are triggered.

Town, who don’t want to sell Waghorn, are unlikely to accept an offer along those lines but a bid of around that size with a larger proportion of the cash up front may well tempt them to part with last season’s 16-goal top scorer. Contrary to reports elsewhere, Waghorn has not made a transfer request.

TWTD previously revealed that Middlesbrough and Birmingham City are also interested in Waghorn, while Nottingham Forest have been linked. Sheffield United have ruled themselves out of the race due to Town's valuation.

Derby are close to completing the signing of former Blues frontman Jack Marriott from Peterborough but that deal is understood not to have an impact on the Rams' pursuit of Waghorn.

Photo: Action Images

supasmiler71 added 08:47 - Jul 26 The word this morning is that Derby interest has cooled (more interested in Marriot). Boro could be the danger now, closer to home and family etc.
2

BlueInBerks added 08:51 - Jul 26 Sorry off topic, but can someone please remind me why Jack Marriot was sold, as I keep seeing his name pop up everywhere?
6

Ipswichbusiness added 08:55 - Jul 26 BlueInBerks: if memory serves me right it was because MM determined that we had so many massively talented strikers that Marriott was surplus to requirements.
4

davetheblue added 09:00 - Jul 26 Bluelnberks i think if i remember he come back after one summer break a bit overweight. mick loaned him out a few times to a few non league clubs ,had early success but then went a bit flat ,mick lost his patience and let him go ,ever since he has been rebuilding his career and doing quite well ,i guess you win some you lose some
9

crazyblue68 added 09:02 - Jul 26 This has Murphy written all over it again. He will be sold about 3rd August when its too late to get anybody in. Anyway, how about a central defender Hurts and Evans?
1

Hegansheroes added 09:13 - Jul 26 Bluenberks, Marriot was sold by MM because he didn't fit the hoofball tactics and from what I've heard didn't see eye to eye with the dinosaur. Now worth around 7mil, I do remember the fans calling for him to be given a chance but good old Mick new best. Interesting to read some of Hurst's comments re fitness & attitude etc. Reading between the lines don't think he's too impressed with some of the things he's inherited.

2

ArnieM added 09:14 - Jul 26 The price has just gone up to £12m then ....,
-1

ChrisFelix added 09:20 - Jul 26 I feel Marriot will haunt us more than the Rhodes deal. The latter after a promising start has done verythema little since he went to Blackburn. Marriot has it all ahead of him. What angers me about Mccarthy is his failure to blood the youth. Our very promising wing backs come to mind. One of them went to Rotherham & won an award !!!
1

casanovacrow added 09:31 - Jul 26 crazyblue68, I think the Murphy issue wouldn't be an such a problem with PH, he looks for players in a different market to Mick. Mick would've been trying to replace with a proven championship or above record on the cheap which is like trying to find hens teeth at the best of times. I wouldn't be surprised if PH/ME have many potential deals for lower league players ready to go with the money, that's why we are playing hardball on getting the money up front. Let's hope that's the case anyway.

1

TimmyH added 09:34 - Jul 26 Yawn!
0

BlueandTruesince82 added 09:43 - Jul 26 Blue, Marriot sold for daring to come back a touch over weight and instead of putting an arm around him and helping him learn Mick had a paddy
3

naa added 09:49 - Jul 26 chrisshants: MM is the past but if you must go there look at the stat that showed that our youth products had more minutes on the pitch than anyone other Championship team last year. Klug admitted when Mick arrived there weren't any good prospects. Later on there were and he played them. But you can't just shove 5 youngsters into a team and expect it to work. As for Marriott. The guy had several failed loans spells after one good one (in a team 3 or 4 divisions below us) and came back after the summer unfit. Mick loaned him out some more and he didn't do anything. Hindsight is wonderful but it was not the wrong decision at the time. In fact, I suspect Marriott has only come good because of the kick up the arse he got by being let go. If he'd stayed he may well not have improved as much as he has. Look, I'm glad Mick has gone but this idea of blaming him for everything is a bit sad really. We have a new manager with new ideas, let's look forward to those instead shall we?

24

byronitfc added 09:50 - Jul 26 Here is how it might play: Marriot: Posh > Derby Vydra: Derby > Leeds Waghorn: Ipswich > Derby Would anyone take a straight swap: Waghorn for Vydra?
1

JCTractorboy added 10:21 - Jul 26 I'm pretty sure Marriott admitted himself that his attitude wasn't spot on . He was only a young kid but sometimes they need a kick up the ar*e like he got to realise their attitude isn't great. It's a pity nonetheless. Surprised people are so bothered seeing as the other day there were a number moaning that lower league players won't be good enough for us this season.

3

GatesPerm added 10:47 - Jul 26 We are blessed on this site to have contributors who were close enough to McCarthy and the team to be able to report all these Paddy's, falling outs, etc so accurately. Managing groups and teams is something that is impossible to get right 100% of the time and sometimes you will make calls that in hindsight proved to be the wrong call. Even the great manager's (and McCarthy is not in that category) get some calls wrong.

2

DurhamTownFan added 10:57 - Jul 26 I know everyone is weighting up the pros and cons of Waghorn leaving. As an outsider (now living in Swansea) it just doesn't make ANY sense to sell what is undoubtedly our best player bar Bart. You could look at the Leicester Mcgoldrick bid and argue that if the player wants to go then we should let him, and that's fair. But purely in footballing terms it would be a big backwards step, and I think it would suck out a lot of the good feeling that's been slowly coming back since Hurst arrived. In sum-if we sell him I'll be gutted!

1

Lightningboy added 11:05 - Jul 26 This is where we need to put our foot down for once. A - we don't need to sell. B - If anybody wants him badly enough they pay up the £8m in full by the weekend or that's the end of it. C - we'll need time to find a replacement So this dragging on til the beginning of August is totally disruptive to PH's plans.
4

BarbelBoy added 11:11 - Jul 26 Why do people keep referring to Jack Marriott as having been "sold" by us ? Check out the facts - his contract came to an end and MM decided he did not merit another one. We did not get a fee from Luton (and they only offered him an initial twelve month deal so probably had their own reservations but were prepared to take a punt).
1

BlueBlood90 added 11:13 - Jul 26 We have absolutely no obligation to sell Waghorn if we don't want to. It's pretty clear that Waghorn has told Hurst he'd like to go otherwise he wouldn't have been an unused substitute against MK Dons, but he has a contract which he has to honour and seems a good enough professional to get on with it either way. If teams aren't offering us what we want for him then that's their problem, not ours. Would Waghorn really even be an important player at somewhere like Middlesbrough or Derby anyway? I don't think he would.

0

BlueInBerks added 11:16 - Jul 26 Sorry I brought the thorny issue of Jack Marriot up! Let's talk about Connor Wickham...
1

Bluedandy added 11:30 - Jul 26 Endless Waghorn transfer speculation now becoming a painfully dreary distraction ...
0

Wickets added 11:34 - Jul 26 Yer Barbelboy we just let him walk away at the end of his contract but its now with hindsight proved to be a big error. I did find it strange though that Mick claimed that everyone at the club thought it was the right thing to do so passing on the responsibility for that descision, not so sure that was the truth but who knows!
-2

lightingblue added 12:03 - Jul 26 Gents. All that it is very easy to blame McCarthy for Marriott. Guess he had made his judgment at the time. He did also make a number of good player appointments. Now that is history and that door has now shut. We have another new manager and let's forget the Marriott at Ipswich situation. His now a best part derby player. We won't be the first club that this would have happened to and won't be the last.

2

Kropotkin123 added 13:12 - Jul 26 I understand the add-ons and clauses to meet for younger players. It give a way to represent the true value of a player as they develop, without significant risk to either party. But frankly, Waghorn is 28. If Derby can't get the desired games or performance from him then it will be down to their management team. We shouldn't accept any bid where the risk of him doing well falls into our court. We didn't pursue Lampard as a manager, and don't want to be financially accountable for his failings. Stump up or move on.

0

backwaywhen added 13:12 - Jul 26 Lost us Marriott .....found us Mings .....swings and roundabouts , move on.
3

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls