Popular Post CarryOnVilla Posted January 19, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted January 19, 2023 We should have never of bought him. For the price we paid. For the wages he’s on. For the game time we give him. The age he is. He hasn’t clicked at villa, so I’m happy to get some money for him. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delphinho123 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 4 minutes ago, useless said: West Ham insider EastVillageHammer says fee agreed, so presumably it's just now a case of Ings agreeing terms with them. He’d have done that before the bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnyp Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 2 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said: Sky Sports reported Thierry Henry was odds on top become Villa manager. Source of Ings to Wham seems to be Mike McGrath DT article McGrath is pretty reputable. He doesn’t write for a rag. I’m sure he wouldn’t have editorial approval to publish any old drivel. They are a top scribe. Everyone got the Henry thing wrong. Sky more than most, I’ll agree, but everyone got that wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete101 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Always have that thought that Ings is due another long term injury, seems to have stayed clear of one while with us. Might be worth taking any offer serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Just now, Johnnyp said: McGrath is pretty reputable. He doesn’t write for a rag. I’m sure he wouldn’t have editorial approval to publish any old drivel. They are a top scribe. Everyone got the Henry thing wrong. Sky more than most, I’ll agree, but everyone got that wrong. Alex Crooks tweeting about it to source McGrath. We better be getting someone in other than Duran. Bailey is not enough cover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Be brilliant to get £15m for someone who is never going to be starting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWARLEY2 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 1 minute ago, Kiwivillan said: Alex Crooks tweeting about it to source McGrath. We better be getting someone in other than Duran. Bailey is not enough cover Cannot see us shooting ourselves in the foot unless we have a target lined up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnyp Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 I don’t think the Brighton game diluted Emery’s opinion of Ings. He knows he can’t really press and his game plan is such that it has to work from the front for all the pieces to fall line. We won’t always create goals like when Luiz dispossessed McAllister and it fell to Ings. He wants us to create chances from our own game plan. He’s probably thinking the 2nd Brighton goal in particular are the exception, not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Scorpio Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 2 minutes ago, Tomaszk said: Be brilliant to get £15m for someone who is never going to be starting. Yeah brilliant just the £10m loss already. Fantastic business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Just now, Tomaszk said: Be brilliant to get £15m for someone who is never going to be starting. £10m according to Alex Crook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 (edited) 4 minutes ago, MWARLEY2 said: Cannot see us shooting ourselves in the foot unless we have a target lined up Even though people fail to mention, if there's anything to Deulefou rumour, he's played up top as CF near a season worth of games at Watford not just second striker Edited January 19, 2023 by Kiwivillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 7 minutes ago, Pissflaps said: Watch us accept £10m. Just the nice £15m loss on him then if that happens. That's why we have no money because we never ever sell players for a profit. Terribly run football team for a long time. Was a terrible buy from the moment we did it. £15-20m was the price we should have been bidding, and if Southampton didn't accept, fair enough. 5 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said: £10m according to Alex Crook On 11/01/2023 at 01:55, Tomaszk said: If we are offered £10m, and someone picks up his whole contract, we accept. £15m would be brilliant. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWARLEY2 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 And now that East Village hammer is saying it might end up being a loan for Ings . I love these itk . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnyp Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Sometimes when Villa do these signings where the media don’t get a sniff, as was the case with Ings, fans are like “ Villa are genius here, never left it out and kept would be bidders out “ Could also easily translate as “ We’ve panicked here, we don’t know what we are doing and we’ve rushed this through “ I’d say the reality is somewhere in the middle. I never get too enamoured like some do on here about how secretive we do business at times. It’s means nothing. When the dust settles. - are they any good is the only relevant question . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Rich_H Posted January 19, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted January 19, 2023 7 minutes ago, MWARLEY2 said: And now that East Village hammer is saying it might end up being a loan for Ings . I love these itk . If we accept a loan for Ings without a steep obligation to buy it would be an even more braindead move than letting Targett go last January. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnnyp Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Just now, Rich_H said: If we accept a loan for Ings without a steep obligation to buy it would be an even more braindead move than letting Targett go last January. Totally agree. We aren’t in the business of “ getting west ham out of a hole “ It’s strictly business. If it’s structured in such a way that means it’s loan with us still paying a large chunk of his wages - id say no and Danny would have to understand and be grown up to realise if it did go tits up because of a deal structured like that then it’s not our fault, it’s West Ham’s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 18 minutes ago, Pissflaps said: Yeah brilliant just the £10m loss already. Fantastic business Yep. We **** up by signing him, if we can recoup some, that's good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 That loan comment wasn't a serious suggestion or meant to be taken as 'ITK', it was just a flippant comment based on West Ham fans' knowledge of the usual kind of tricks that Sullivan likes to come up with, they were just saying that they wouldn't be surprised if it was something Sullivan tried to do at the last minute. He won't be going there on loan unless, there's an obligation to buy at the end. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_H Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 2 minutes ago, Johnnyp said: Totally agree. We aren’t in the business of “ getting west ham out of a hole “ It’s strictly business. If it’s structured in such a way that means it’s loan with us still paying a large chunk of his wages - id say no and Danny would have to understand and be grown up to realise if it did go tits up because of a deal structured like that then it’s not our fault, it’s West Ham’s. Any loan without a £15-20m obligation with no clauses should be an immediate no. Regardless of Targetts value this season he won them a fair few points last season and contributed towards them staying up and now they’ve overtaken us. Giving the spam the same treatment this season would raise serious questions over the decision making with our transfers, even £10-15m and get the wages off the books if we have a replacement lined up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 1 minute ago, Rich_H said: Giving the spam the same treatment this season would raise serious questions over the decision making with our transfers, even £10-15m and get the wages off the books if we have a replacement lined up. It would confirm we're mugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts