Danny Ings

[Delphinho123]

Fwiw, If Ings was 24 and not on £125k a week, no doubt we should be keeping him. But, he’s 29, on huge wages, his resale value is diminishing by the season and he looks slow and immobile.

I just think it might be sound business to offload the wages and get some money for him and reinvest it in a younger, faster striker. If our scouting department has anything about it, they’d be able to go and get someone with the money we’d get and any additional budget on top. 

Moot point anyway. Doubt anyone is giving him another retirement contract like we have. 

[Demitri_C]

We certainly cant afford to let ings go with watkins injury and archer on loan.

If watkins injury is bad a recall for davis or traore might have to be a option

[Mark Albrighton]

Look guys, we all swore a blood oath that at least one of Ings, Buendia and Bailey need to provoke the sentiment that “he’s no good” or “we wasted the Grealish money!!!”. 

It was agreed that this needs to be in place at all times on VT.

As both Buendia and Bailey scored last night, the onus this week falls to Ings to be the one that is the subject of the criticism. For it is written. In blood.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Mark Albrighton

[Delphinho123]

1 minute ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Look guys, we all swore a blood oath that at least one of Ings, Buendia and Bailey need to provoke the sentiment that “he’s no good” or “we wasted the Grealish money!!!”. 

It was agreed that this needs to be in place at all times on VT.

As both Buendia and Bailey scored last night, the onus this week falls to Ings to be the one that is the subject of the criticism. For it is written. In blood.

Nearly 100m for those 3 still makes me shudder. Woeful waste of the money. 

[lexicon]

It would be incredibly foolish to sell Ings IMO as we're not going to get enough for him to justify it. He's also very useful as an impact sub against tired legs, as we've seen since Emery's arrival.

What he isn't is a replacement for Ollie, and having to play against a team that is as fit, physical and fast as Leeds was always going to be difficult for him.

 

[AntrimBlack]

2 hours ago, lexicon said:

It would be incredibly foolish to sell Ings IMO as we're not going to get enough for him to justify it. He's also very useful as an impact sub against tired legs, as we've seen since Emery's arrival.

What he isn't is a replacement for Ollie, and having to play against a team that is as fit, physical and fast as Leeds was always going to be difficult for him.

 

Yep. The game passed him by last night.

His skillset is not really suited to Emery's playing style, but we still need him for now until we bring in a different type of striker.

[CVByrne]

3 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

Yep. The game passed him by last night.

His skillset is not really suited to Emery's playing style, but we still need him for now until we bring in a different type of striker.

So Ings scored the 2 goals to beat Brighton and got the equaliser against Wolves. But he's not needed as far as you're concerned. 

[rodders0223]

Would anyone take on his 120k and give us cash dollars for him anyway?

 

Edit, not that I want us to sell him but I don't see clubs that would be interesting risking going down with that kind of commitment.

I think we're good for each other atm

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by rodders0223

[Laughable Chimp]

14 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

Would anyone take on his 120k and give us cash dollars for him anyway?

 

Edit, not that I want us to sell him but I don't see clubs that would be interesting risking going down with that kind of commitment.

I think we're good for each other atm

 

Nope. Doubt any club is taking him on anything but a loan or a massively discounted fee.

people will argue that he’s guaranteed goals and some club will be desperate enough to take him but he’s not really is he? If he were guaranteed goals, he would be starting for us over a watkins who hasn’t exactly been on fire this season and wouldn’t have half the fanbase wanting him gone.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Laughable Chimp

[AntrimBlack]

3 hours ago, CVByrne said:

So Ings scored the 2 goals to beat Brighton and got the equaliser against Wolves. But he's not needed as far as you're concerned. 

No. We need him for now - I said that.

But we will need a different type of striker as we go forward.

[nick76]

10 minutes ago, AntrimBlack said:

No. We need him for now - I said that.

But we will need a different type of striker as we go forward.

Don’t agree, he’s perfect striker going forwards as the back up to whatever striker we bring in.  He’s somebody you bring in for something different and/or to nick you a late goal.

[turvontour]

4 hours ago, CVByrne said:

So Ings scored the 2 goals to beat Brighton and got the equaliser against Wolves. But he's not needed as far as you're concerned. 

This is it. He is getting older and slower each season, but you can rely on him getting a goal every other game or every few games. It's not easy to replace that in the premier league.

[useless]

I don't think his goal ratio is as good as some think, he's only scored in four games from eighteen PL appearances this season, he recently went on a run of scoring just one in fourteen, and that wasn't a one off either, last year he went on a run of one goal in eleven and at the end of 2021 scored just one in ten, he seems to have tendency to have spell where he will score one or two goals but then go a while without scoring again.

Also people saying we can't afford to sell him because of his goals, well obviously the club aren't stupid and recognize this as well, they aren't going to sell him unless they have someone coming in who they think is better.

For someone of his age, if we can get a decent fee, and replace with good option, then a sale wouldn't be a bad option, but equally if he stays that's not bad either, as someone who can come off the bench and get us a goal.

[villaglint]

Of course it’s possible to improve on Ings and Watkins but it sure ain’t easy. Everyone wants strikers and there are very few about. 
 

 

[nick76]

35 minutes ago, useless said:

I don't think his goal ratio is as good as some think, he's only scored in four games from eighteen PL appearances this season, he recently went on a run of scoring just one in fourteen, and that wasn't a one off either, last year he went on a run of one goal in eleven and at the end of 2021 scored just one in ten, he seems to have tendency to have spell where he will score one or two goals but then go a while without scoring again.

Also people saying we can't afford to sell him because of his goals, well obviously the club aren't stupid and recognize this as well, they aren't going to sell him unless they have someone coming in who they think is better.

For someone of his age, if we can get a decent fee, and replace with good option, then a sale wouldn't be a bad option, but equally if he stays that's not bad either, as someone who can come off the bench and get us a goal.

This is so misleading saying the PL appearances without saying how many minutes he had in those games.  As of last week the stat was 6 goals in the equivalent of 8.5 games of minutes.  Those PL appearances were far from full appearances so gives a false impression. 
 

Edit: he has 6 goals in 818 league minutes this season, then 1 goal and 2 assists in the cups we were barely in.  Not bad for non-starting striker (League: started 8 games, on the bench 11 games, came on in 10 of those)

Edited January 14, 2023 by nick76

[lexicon]

5 hours ago, AntrimBlack said:

Yep. The game passed him by last night.

His skillset is not really suited to Emery's playing style, but we still need him for now until we bring in a different type of striker.

It's not suited to the first half playing style - but he's done excellently when brought on in the 2nd half. 

[Made In Aston]

9 hours ago, Delphinho123 said:

Fwiw, If Ings was 24 and not on £125k a week, no doubt we should be keeping him. But, he’s 29, on huge wages, his resale value is diminishing by the season and he looks slow and immobile.

I just think it might be sound business to offload the wages and get some money for him and reinvest it in a younger, faster striker. If our scouting department has anything about it, they’d be able to go and get someone with the money we’d get and any additional budget on top. 

Moot point anyway. Doubt anyone is giving him another retirement contract like we have. 

If we are going to sell him the time would be now. There are a few clubs near the bottom who would be desperate enough to get him on a loan to buy deal. 

[nick76]

Just now, Made In Aston said:

If we are going to sell him the time would be now. There are a few clubs near the bottom who would be desperate enough to get him on a loan to buy deal. 

Who cares about other teams, we need him, no way should we be selling him.

[gwi1890]

11 hours ago, Made In Aston said:

If we are going to sell him the time would be now. There are a few clubs near the bottom who would be desperate enough to get him on a loan to buy deal. 

He’s a different option up front and has saved our bacon numerous times this season. Yes we need better than him and Ollie but they don’t come around often. For the time being we are better off seeing out the season with him.

 

 

[alreadyexists]

I think he’s the best striker we’ve had at the club since Benteke… no way should we be getting rid of him. Ignore the financials, they are for the bean counters to consider, just as a football fan I want to see Ings on our side rather than against us.