Jump to content

Danny Ings


HalfTimePost

Recommended Posts

If his reported salary is correct we have got a problem. I always thought he was an odd signing but if he is in £120k/wk, we are stuck with him. I just don’t see how he fits in other than being first reserve for Ollie. We can’t afford to be paying our first reserve that much! If Newcastle come calling in Jan, I would offload him at the first opportunity. A very odd signing, that looks odder with every passing week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, M_Afro said:

If his reported salary is correct we have got a problem. I always thought he was an odd signing but if he is in £120k/wk, we are stuck with him. I just don’t see how he fits in other than being first reserve for Ollie. We can’t afford to be paying our first reserve that much! If Newcastle come calling in Jan, I would offload him at the first opportunity. A very odd signing, that looks odder with every passing week.

No way should we be helping those feckers.

Much rather loan him back to Saints

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

No way should we be helping those feckers.

Much rather loan him back to Saints

They are our best hope of a decent transfer fee and they can afford to match his wages. They are also desperate. I only care about what’s best for us. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

No way should we be helping those feckers.

Much rather loan him back to Saints

To be honest I wouldn't care about helping them in the short term, to help ourselves in the long term.

Ings undoubtedly has pedigree, but I'm starting to inch towards the " where does he fit in " if we see Ollie as our number one.

Also, it could just be us being impatient and writing things off too early as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn’t look like value for anything like what we paid in transfer fee of wages for him.

He doesn’t look happy.

Like one of those signings where they don’t want to come but we’ve offered too much to turn down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

To be honest I wouldn't care about helping them in the short term, to help ourselves in the long term.

Ings undoubtedly has pedigree, but I'm starting to inch towards the " where does he fit in " if we see Ollie as our number one.

Also, it could just be us being impatient and writing things off too early as well.

Also if we want transfer value then it would be easier to get a big fee for Ollie given his age and salary than sell Ings.  If  Ollie carries on the way he is, in his poor form, then it wouldnt make a difference whether we sell either but whoever we sell we need to replace and getting a bigger fee then we can find a better solution.  

I dont honestly want to sell either but we arent going to get decent value for Ings so for budget purposes if we had to sell one it would have to be Ings.

Again I wouldnt sell either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

He doesn’t look like value for anything like what we paid in transfer fee of wages for him.

He doesn’t look happy.

Like one of those signings where they don’t want to come but we’ve offered too much to turn down.

Very good point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if they get on back stage. I dunno but Ollie seems a bit of a sulker to me. Just speculating.

Never seen 2 strikers not work so much on a pitch. They should be working together, loving each other, little 1-2s, grabbing the goals. But they just look like 2 individuals out there, not interested in where each other is.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

If we want to progress we need two good players in every position. 

Ings gives us that. He's a back up to Ollie or a good option if Ollie is out of form.

But it's one or the other.

 

It’s chicken and egg scenario isn’t it.

Are we good enough to have someone that costs that much money on the bench week after week?

No

Will we move up to the next level without strength in depth?

No

We actually need Watkins to get injured to justify it.

Edited by Genie
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Are we good enough to have someone that costs that much money on the bench week after week?

No

Why? Are we believing we are a Top 8 team? If we do, look at those teams around us that have expensive quality on the bench and not just one or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Why? Are we believing we are a Top 8 team? If we do, look at those teams around us that have expensive quality on the bench and not just one or two.

We aren’t leaving him on the bench, that’s the issue. We’re shoe horning both into the side, I assume because he cost so much money and he wouldn’t be happy on the bench.

Edited by Genie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Genie said:

We aren’t leaving him on the bench, that’s the issue. We’re shoe horning both into the side, I assume because he cost so much money and he wouldn’t be happy on the bench.

Or that Traore has been out, Bailey is out.  We haven’t had many options on the front line have we because of injuries to Ollie early on and Ings recently so I’m not sure we are shoe horning.  It’s a mixture of having to because of injuries and also trying new combinations out.  Wasn’t this the first time Gerrard started both?!  Plus Ollie has been well out of form.  Also if Ollie doesn’t score, it’s not as if anybody else really scores.  We don’t get consistent other scorers so nice to have more than one person on the pitch than can score regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Which is an issue in itself considering we spent £100m on Ings, Buendia and Bailey.

 

I meant that if Ings isn’t on then we have to rely on Ollie.  We have no idea about Bailey yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â