Jump to content

Danny Ings

JxgrSaint

By JxgrSaint,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
He’s **** and injury crock and waste of money YEH RIGHT

 

Cough cough

 

Again, people are missing the point. Nobody has said that he is sh*t or that he couldn't score when fit.

 

The big picture hasn't changed off the back of one game. We could still get relegated and the first thing we'd be doing is handing Liverpool £20m for a player who's out injured for the next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Again, people are missing the point. Nobody has said that he is sh*t or that he couldn't score when fit.

 

The big picture hasn't changed off the back of one game. We could still get relegated and the first thing we'd be doing is handing Liverpool £20m for a player who's out injured for the next year.

 

We could also finish top half and he stays injury free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
a1ex2001

a1ex2001

Posted
Posted
Which we could have done signing him on loan, without the guaranteed transfer at the end.

 

I'm still not convinced by this must buy clause, it seems odd and very unusual but then nothing would surprise me with Saints! I guess the risk was if he cam here and had a good season he's suddenly a 40-50m player with todays prices so maybe liverpool wanted that factored in if it was an option to buy. Lets be honest 20m is nothing in the premier league these days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
Who's to say the permanent transfer is triggered even if we've been relegated?

 

Does anyone know what the contract says?

 

If not, I wouldn't worry about it now and just be pleased we've signed a good striker for the moment.

 

Indeed. Opinion of Ings with no doubt fluctuate between being a great signing for us (when fit & scoring) & a terrible signing (when he's injured).

 

Lets just enjoy the fit & scoring part at the mo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
I'm still not convinced by this must buy clause, it seems odd and very unusual but then nothing would surprise me with Saints! I guess the risk was if he cam here and had a good season he's suddenly a 40-50m player with todays prices so maybe liverpool wanted that factored in if it was an option to buy. Lets be honest 20m is nothing in the premier league these days!

 

It is a must buy clause and as for odd and unusual... Carrillo.

 

It's still our record signing and a massive amount for a Championship club.

 

Who's to say the permanent transfer is triggered even if we've been relegated?

 

Does anyone know what the contract says?

 

If not, I wouldn't worry about it now and just be pleased we've signed a good striker for the moment.

 

We did

 

https://southamptonfc.com/news/2018-08-09/announcement-southampton-sign-danny-ings-liverpool-loan-deal

 

Indeed. Opinion of Ings with no doubt fluctuate between being a great signing for us (when fit & scoring) & a terrible signing (when he's injured).

 

Lets just enjoy the fit & scoring part at the mo.

 

I do enjoy watching him score and my opinion of him hasn't changed. Neither has my opinion of the transfer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted

Ings to me looks like as good a striker than anyone else outside the top 6 has to be honest bar maybe Arnautovic. Probably only Wilson, Mitrovic, and Murray look his level and I'd wager by the end of the season he outscores the latter two as I think he will excel in Ralph's tactics, his pressing from the front yesterday was exemplary and he looked again as quick and sharp as he did when he arrived from pool.

 

Obviously there are fitness issues, though hamstrings are pretty common injuries for anyone, but that is now 6 in 11 starts for a team that until yesterday was woeful. Wilson in comparison has 8 in 15, Murray 8 in 14 and Mitrovic 7 in 17.

 

If he can double that total that already makes £20 million look decent, if he was on loan and we didn't have the transfer agreed, then if he ended up with like 12-14 goals from 25 - 28 games by the end of the season I reckon pool would be asking more than £20 million for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DT

DT

Posted
Posted

I absolutely loved the hard running he did to try and close down their defenders and keeper yesterday. It's this kind of work at the front that creates mistakes and allows us to work higher up the pitch, thus not exposing our average back four. Excellent.

Also we should not forget McCarthy yesterday, who made some crucial saves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint77

saint77

Posted
Posted
Again, people are missing the point. Nobody has said that he is sh*t or that he couldn't score when fit.

 

The big picture hasn't changed off the back of one game. We could still get relegated and the first thing we'd be doing is handing Liverpool £20m for a player who's out injured for the next year.

 

not missing the point that some people talk cr-ap

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
It is a must buy clause and as for odd and unusual... Carrillo.

 

It's still our record signing and a massive amount for a Championship club.

 

 

 

We did

 

https://southamptonfc.com/news/2018-08-09/announcement-southampton-sign-danny-ings-liverpool-loan-deal

 

 

 

I do enjoy watching him score and my opinion of him hasn't changed. Neither has my opinion of the transfer.

 

That article doesn't confirm what has been agreed. "Ahead of a permanent move" is somewhat vague. You really think there are no caveats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
That article doesn't confirm what has been agreed. "Ahead of a permanent move" is somewhat vague. You really think there are no caveats?

 

It’s not in any way vague. Ings will sign permanently in summer. If there were caveats, it would say a ‘possible, potential, proposed or option to move’ etc. It doesn’t, it says permanent and i think some of our more reliable ITKs said he’s already signed a 4 year deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JRM

JRM

Posted
Posted
It’s not in any way vague. Ings will sign permanently in summer. If there were caveats, it would say a ‘possible, potential, proposed or option to move’ etc. It doesn’t, it says permanent and i think some of our more reliable ITKs said he’s already signed a 4 year deal.

 

Wasn't it done this way as we couldn't afford him with FFP restrictions? 6 goals is a good start considering all the games he's missed. If he could stay fit I think he'd have a decent chance of an England call up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Which we could have done signing him on loan, without the guaranteed transfer at the end.

You assume Liverpool were willing to loan him. The bottom line is we've bought him, albeit with the first year as a loan for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
Wasn't it done this way as we couldn't afford him with FFP restrictions? 6 goals is a good start considering all the games he's missed. If he could stay fit I think he'd have a decent chance of an England call up.

 

I'm not doubting that's the case but a loan with an option to buy would seem the sensible option, given his terrible injury record.

 

You assume Liverpool were willing to loan him. The bottom line is we've bought him, albeit with the first year as a loan for whatever reason.

 

They didn't want him and nobody bought him with hours of the transfer window remaining. I'd have called their bluff on that, there's absolutely no reason they wouldn't have loaned him out. It's like if someone had come in and offered to loan Forster for the season. It's a no brainer, just a waste of wages otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
It’s not in any way vague. Ings will sign permanently in summer. If there were caveats, it would say a ‘possible, potential, proposed or option to move’ etc. It doesn’t, it says permanent and i think some of our more reliable ITKs said he’s already signed a 4 year deal.

 

I'm sure he has signed the deal. I also think it may have relegation break clauses. Or maybe it doesn't. I don't know. Neither do you.

 

Not sure why you're so excited about it anyway though. Let's assume the deal is not contingent on staying up. That means we've basically signed him on a perm. If we had announced we had signed him on a perm last summer, would you be saying it was a bad signing because he might get injured and we might get relegated? That's true of anyone and, frankly, we were crying out for a decent striker signing - which we got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint77

saint77

Posted
Posted
I'm sure he has signed the deal. I also think it may have relegation break clauses. Or maybe it doesn't. I don't know. Neither do you.

 

Not sure why you're so excited about it anyway though. Let's assume the deal is not contingent on staying up. That means we've basically signed him on a perm. If we had announced we had signed him on a perm last summer, would you be saying it was a bad signing because he might get injured and we might get relegated? That's true of anyone and, frankly, we were crying out for a decent striker signing - which we got.

 

Don’t get it do you the boy mod has a bee in his bonnet about Ings for some reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
Well, no one asked him anyway.

 

Even if there isn't a get out clause then transfer fees are spread over the duration of the contract, loans have a loan fee attached and we had to structure the deal so that it was loan first to comply with FFP. I would suggest that the "loan fee" is the simply first instalment of the transfer fee for year one at which point Ings will transfer his full registration to us on a permanent deal and the other instalments are paid over the rest of his contract. We wont just hand Liverpool £20m like some people seem to believe. Had we signed him as a permanent signing in August everyone would have been delighted, because it's got a loan attached to it first some people are bleating about it. Still a good signing and if he gets 12 goals or more he'd have been worth every penny. Even if we have to sign him permanently ago go down we'll have one of the best strikers in the championship to help us get back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ex Lion Tamer

Ex Lion Tamer

Posted
Posted

They didn't want him and nobody bought him with hours of the transfer window remaining. I'd have called their bluff on that, there's absolutely no reason they wouldn't have loaned him out. It's like if someone had come in and offered to loan Forster for the season. It's a no brainer, just a waste of wages otherwise.

They did want him, but agreed to let him go if he could find a club because he wanted first team football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doggface

doggface

Posted
Posted

I have been a fan of Ings since his Burnley days, he is a good player and looks technically better since his time at Liverpool.

 

If the deal is indeed structured as advertised, with no get out clause in the event of serious knee injury re-occurrence, that was and is a massive gamble. So far so good, he has had a few niggles but just got on with it. If he can get a consistent run going I think we can see a bit more power and pace from him and even more goals.

 

Hopefully the risk will pay off in spades, a really good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
I'm sure he has signed the deal. I also think it may have relegation break clauses. Or maybe it doesn't. I don't know. Neither do you.

 

Not sure why you're so excited about it anyway though. Let's assume the deal is not contingent on staying up. That means we've basically signed him on a perm. If we had announced we had signed him on a perm last summer, would you be saying it was a bad signing because he might get injured and we might get relegated? That's true of anyone and, frankly, we were crying out for a decent striker signing - which we got.

 

Yes.

 

Any permanent signing of a player with his injury record is a bad deal. He has hardly played in the last 3 years. Total appearances in the last 3 years 14, 2, 10

 

Just to be clear, I'm not having a go at Ings here, he's by far our best striker when he's fit. This is all on Reed for agreeing to this deal. I can't believe that Liverpool wouldn't take a loan with a fee and an OPTION to buy for a player they clearly don't need.

 

Turkish - I'm also well aware that this isn't £20m cash up front next summer. Just going with the widely reported figure for the overall deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Yes.

 

Any permanent signing of a player with his injury record is a bad deal. He has hardly played in the last 3 years. Total appearances in the last 3 years 14, 2, 10

 

Just to be clear, I'm not having a go at Ings here, he's by far our best striker when he's fit. This is all on Reed for agreeing to this deal. I can't believe that Liverpool wouldn't take a loan with a fee and an OPTION to buy for a player they clearly don't need.

 

Turkish - I'm also well aware that this isn't £20m cash up front next summer. Just going with the widely reported figure for the overall deal.

This is tedious. None of us have any idea what we offered, and what they were willing to accept. I get that you would have preferred a loan to buy but that may not have been an option and even it was, I remember the Toby fiasco. Anyways, it is what it is and we have a decent striker who is scoring and, like any other player, may stay fit or may not.

 

I'm happy to have him and if this deal was the deal available I'd rather we took him on that basis than not at all. For what it's worth, I suspect Turkish is right about how the deal will have been structured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
This is tedious. None of us have any idea what we offered, and what they were willing to accept. I get that you would have preferred a loan to buy but that may not have been an option and even it was, I remember the Toby fiasco. Anyways, it is what it is and we have a decent striker who is scoring and, like any other player, may stay fit or may not.

 

I'm happy to have him and if this deal was the deal available I'd rather we took him on that basis than not at all. For what it's worth, I suspect Turkish is right about how the deal will have been structured.

 

I’m not often wrong pal and there is a reason for that, just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HKsaint

HKsaint

Posted
Posted

After the Alderwierd's saga, I have no confidence on our lawyers. Instead of having an absolute option to buy or an opton not to buy in the case of serious injury reoccurance in a buy-out clause, we may end up with a clause allowing the player or pool to have a leeway not to go or sell.

 

Do we know which law firm are we engaging?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Even if there isn't a get out clause then transfer fees are spread over the duration of the contract, loans have a loan fee attached and we had to structure the deal so that it was loan first to comply with FFP. I would suggest that the "loan fee" is the simply first instalment of the transfer fee for year one at which point Ings will transfer his full registration to us on a permanent deal and the other instalments are paid over the rest of his contract. We wont just hand Liverpool £20m like some people seem to believe. Had we signed him as a permanent signing in August everyone would have been delighted, because it's got a loan attached to it first some people are bleating about it. Still a good signing and if he gets 12 goals or more he'd have been worth every penny. Even if we have to sign him permanently ago go down we'll have one of the best strikers in the championship to help us get back up.

 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Nordic Saint

Nordic Saint

Posted
Posted
Let's all pray he's fit for most of games left this season along with Redmond otherwise goals are going to be extremely sparse.

 

The prayers are not working. Ings just seems to limp from one injury to another. So, I guess it's down to Shane Long and Charlie Austin, when he's fit, to score the goals we need to stay up:

 

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/17453108.southampton-striker-danny-ings-could-be-out-until-tottenham/?ref=rss

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Micky

Micky

Posted
Posted

Let's face it, our striking options are pretty dire, which is why we are in this mess. We have a striker who very occasionally plays, and we have a striker who very occasionally scores. It's not a great combination, and probably will be the reason that we go down this season.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
ErwinK1961

ErwinK1961

Posted
Posted
His house is now up for sale.

Read into that what you will.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Hopefully means we do have a get out in the deal, though don’t think we’ll be that lucky. Very reluctant to part with £20m on someone who doesn’t stay fit for more than a handful of games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suhari

Suhari

Posted
Posted
Hopefully means we do have a get out in the deal, though don’t think we’ll be that lucky. Very reluctant to part with £20m on someone who doesn’t stay fit for more than a handful of games.

 

Exactly this.

 

I am sure the £20m could be better spent elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dusic

Dusic

Posted
Posted

Some absolute drivel on this thread.

 

Maybe is just doing what everyone else does without suspicion and moving to a different property in the place that he lives? One that is better or suits his lifestyle more.

 

He is from the area and will probably always have a house here regardless of where he plays football. I assume he had this house for a while before being a Saints player, so not sure its anythig apart from a personal matter of where to live.

 

Also, I have read nothing to suggest that we won't sign him permanently.

 

I have read loads that suggests that is a formality including annoucements from both Saints and Liverpool.

 

If 16m gets you dross like Hoedt, Carillo and Elyounoussi then I don't think the Ings fee is overly ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...