duke313 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: I didn't say he wasn't contributing. No I don't want that, I've never said anything of the sort. You said he's not good enough to start, and that he's a high earner. If he's making an impact from the bench, what does it matter what his wages are? In the past we've had low earners on the bench, who are also crap and don't make an impact when called upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 1 minute ago, duke313 said: You said he's not good enough to start, and that he's a high earner. If he's making an impact from the bench, what does it matter what his wages are? In the past we've had low earners on the bench, who are also crap and don't make an impact when called upon. I can't be bothered looking it up but he's probably not far off matching that scab grifter Gabby last 5 seasons tally since he's been here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 1 minute ago, duke313 said: You said he's not good enough to start, and that he's a high earner. If he's making an impact from the bench, what does it matter what his wages are? In the past we've had low earners on the bench, who are also crap and don't make an impact when called upon. This is a bit of a silly argument. You have to evaluate players in terms of how much they're contributing in proportion to how much they're costing the club in wages and depreciation, especially for older players (which is really 28/29+). Please note that 'how much they're contributing' =/= 'he never did anything good', 'he's a bad guy and/or a poor professional', 'he didn't have a good goals/minute ratio' or even 'we should never have signed him'. It just means the club have concluded it is financially advantageous to accept the offer they've been made for a player who isn't starting games. The crucial question is how we replace him, because that really is a legitimate concern at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robtaylor200 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 I liked Ings, I don't think we ever played his type of football. In my eyes he is an old fashioned centre forward in the ilk of Andy Gray and would have been as good if the ball was played into him from the wings rather than from behind him. Obviously not the type of player that Unai wants and that's good enough for me. But watch him start scoring now. All the best Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didiersix Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Ings had the hair of a 1940s RAF officer didn't he? Marvellous stuff. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nepal_villan Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Feel we could have squeezed more for him given it’s the mid-season and West Ham are desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornso Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 3 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said: I can't be bothered looking it up but he's probably not far off matching that scab grifter Gabby last 5 seasons tally since he's been here Going by my spreadsheet, he registered 14 goals, 8 assists in 53 (36 starts) appearances for us. From 16-17 back to 13-14, Gabby returned 12 goals, 10 assists in 99 appearances (81 starts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: This is a bit of a silly argument. You have to evaluate players in terms of how much they're contributing in proportion to how much they're costing the club in wages and depreciation, especially for older players (which is really 28/29+). Please note that 'how much they're contributing' =/= 'he never did anything good', 'he's a bad guy and/or a poor professional', 'he didn't have a good goals/minute ratio' or even 'we should never have signed him'. It just means the club have concluded it is financially advantageous to accept the offer they've been made for a player who isn't starting games. The crucial question is how we replace him, because that really is a legitimate concern at this point. How's it silly? You can have £100,000 a week Danny Ings on the bench who will come on and make an impact on the game. Or You can have £45,000 grand a week Keinan Davis on the bench who will come on and do nothing. I don't care how much our subs are on if they make an impact. Which Ings does. As others have said, it's a good financial decision, but a bad footballing one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted January 19, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 19, 2023 2 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said: I can't be bothered looking it up but he's probably not far off matching that scab grifter Gabby last 5 seasons tally since he's been here For what its worth, you made me interested. Yeah, as it happens, Gabby scored also 13 league goals across his final 5 seasons. That was just under 100 appearances, but I’m definitely not taking the time to calculate his minutes on the pitch for those seasons 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 (edited) 8 minutes ago, nepal_villan said: Feel we could have squeezed more for him given it’s the mid-season and West Ham are desperate. I'm not surprised we caved in as easily as we did when you look at who was leading the negotiations. When was the last time we made a profit on a player or came close to breaking even other than when we sold Grealish? Carney maybe, but that was to Chelsea who are signing everyone at the minute for ridiculous fees. The way were running the club at the minute is not sustainable. Edited January 19, 2023 by AshVilla 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornso Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Seems odd to sell our top scorer, but I’ve got faith in the manager’s vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaParkAvenue Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 2 minutes ago, Didiersix said: Ings had the hair of a 1940s RAF officer didn't he? Marvellous stuff. West Ham need Ings to replace Mark Noble's hairstyle. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 19, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 19, 2023 11 minutes ago, duke313 said: You said he's not good enough to start, and that he's a high earner. If he's making an impact from the bench, what does it matter what his wages are? In the past we've had low earners on the bench, who are also crap and don't make an impact when called upon. He's one of our highest earners, and the longer we keep him the longer his resale value goes down. It's not worth keeping him to make an impact of the bench every now and then. Nobody is talking about having crap players on the bench, that's the straw man you're making up. People are talking about unloading a player who is taking up a shit load of wages, while we can still get a good fee for him, who we won't miss that much. I'm sure there's a replacement coming in who will either be that backup on the bench or go into the first team and leave Watkins as backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Just now, duke313 said: How's it silly? You can have £100,000 a week Danny Ings on the bench who will come on and make an impact on the game. Or You can have £45,000 grand a week Keinan Davis on the bench who will come on and do nothing. I don't care how much our subs are on if they make an impact. Which Ings does. As others have said, it's a good financial decision, but a bad footballing one. Well firstly we don't know whether we will do no further business up front in this window. But even if you're right, and we do recall Davis and he contributes nothing, or even we don't recall him and Watkins ends up getting injured and we limp over the line into the summer, it might *still* be better if it gave us the financial headroom to buy a better striker in the summer. I don't expect that to be the case but the point is the club can decide his 'contribution' (which again, is not necessarily his fault) isn't worth the cost for the benefit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 19, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 19, 2023 4 minutes ago, duke313 said: How's it silly? You can have £100,000 a week Danny Ings on the bench who will come on and make an impact on the game. Or You can have £45,000 grand a week Keinan Davis on the bench who will come on and do nothing. I don't care how much our subs are on if they make an impact. Which Ings does. As others have said, it's a good financial decision, but a bad footballing one. Why are you acting like the only alternative is Keinan Davies You know other footballers exist, right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 He has never been first choice, is on big money, is over 30 and has history of bad injuries, and doesn't fit into our head coach plan who the board wish to be here for a long time. So in theory this makes sense but I just hope we get a quality replacement in as I have fear's of Watkins then getting injured in a usual Villa way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: Why are you acting like the only alternative is Keinan Davies You know other footballers exist, right? I was using him as an example, as he's been our backup striker in previous seasons. And he's terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulberto21 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Why are you acting like the only alternative is Keinan Davies You know other footballers exist, right? Exactly! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nepal_villan Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 5 minutes ago, AshVilla said: I'm not surprised we caved in as easily as we did when you look at who was leading the negotiations. When was the last time we made a profit on a player or came close to breaking even other than when we sold Grealish? Carney maybe, but that was to Chelsea who are signing everyone at the minute for ridiculous fees. And on the other hand seems like we always pay top dollar or get totally fleeced for any incomings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 1 minute ago, duke313 said: I was using him as an example, as he's been our backup striker in previous seasons. And he's terrible. An example of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts