Danny Ings

[Maya's Dad]

2 hours ago, whiteleySaint30 said:

That won't happen though - you know we will roll over like a puppy dog as soon as an offer is receieved......... 

have to agree with you. hate him or not, les reed was good at selling at the right time and usually at the right price.  post les our negotiating has been appalling. granted the position players have left us with were not great, but look at leicester and the prices they have fetched recently. 

[SNSUN]

3 minutes ago, WALK DMC said:

Unlike some of the more optimistic posters on here I don't believe that if he isn't going to sign an extension that there is a chance in hell that he will stay for 12 months until his contract runs down. I'm pretty sure it is us stating our negotiating position so that other teams don't think that they can get him for a give away price, but the reality of the situation is that £20m+ is a huge sum of money for a club like Saints and we'll accept what we can get - I think the question will be whether he leaves soon, or right at the end of this window when other teams (plus us) become more desperate to bring someone in.  I hope sooner rather than later, but you don't always get what you want ..... 

Yep, most clubs can keep a player for a year and pass up £20 million odd but we’re not in a financial position to pass up what would be the same amount of money as our record transfer fee. He’s gone this window if someone wants him. Start building now and at the very least get AArmstrong (Stu A shall henceforth be SArmstrong) in ASAP, then find another striker in due course. We needed one, we now need two strikers.

Shame but if he thinks he’s good enough for another shot at a big club (if we were offering him record money then it isn’t about money) then good luck to him. We arguably may have gone down without him in the past couple of seasons. Get the striker recruitment right or we may well be doing just that in the next year or two.

[ErwinK1961]

3 minutes ago, Maya's Dad said:

have to agree with you. hate him or not, les reed was good at selling at the right time and usually at the right price.  post les our negotiating has been appalling. granted the position players have left us with were not great, but look at leicester and the prices they have fetched recently. 

Really? I don't think it's any different at all to be honest - since Les Reed left, the only notable departures have been PEH (1 year left on his contract and made it clear he would only go to Spurs) and Targett (£15m for our back up LB). We even got someone to pay £4m for Austin FFS.

We got shite fee's for both Clyne and Wanyama under Les' stewardship, because they also 1 year left on their contracts. 

[Daft Kerplunk]

Clearly not about money, this will be about the state of the club and where it is going. At the moment, it’s treading water. If I was Danny, I’d be looking to join a team that at least looks it won’t be disappointing to play in every week. The second half of the season must have been dreadful for our few better than average players. 

[Daft Kerplunk]

1 minute ago, ErwinK1961 said:

Really? I don't think it's any different at all to be honest - since Les Reed left, the only notable departures have been PEH (1 year left on his contract and made it clear he would only go to Spurs) and Targett (£15m for our back up LB). We even got someone to pay £4m for Austin FFS.

We got shite fee's for both Clyne and Wanyama under Les' stewardship, because they also 1 year left on their contracts. 

Really really shit fee for Mane! 

[ErwinK1961]

2 minutes ago, Daft Kerplunk said:

Really really shit fee for Mane! 

Yep, that one was a bit short too!

[Hawkswood]

2 hours ago, skintsaint said:

Well Brighton stayed up with a top scored who got less goals than JWP or Che, I like the idea of Armstrong from Blackburn and 12 months to bed in before we let Danny go.

This is my opinion as well, but I get the impression that we, as supporters are split down the middle on this. Some say take the 20m and invest, others ( me included) are with the above comment. His goals are easily worth the 20mil

[aintforever]

I would not let him leave for £20mill, utterly pointless if we get relegated. Wouldn't be worth listening to anything below £30mill.

Face it, if he goes we are probably fucked. I have little faith in the current set up landing a goalscorer close to the ability of Ings regardless of what fee we get.

 

 

[Matthew Le God]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Face it, if he goes we are probably fucked. I have little faith in the current set up landing a goalscorer close to the ability of Ings regardless of what fee we get.

Were you upset with the club signing Diallo, Salisu and Walker-Peters in the last summer transfer window?

[Saint Billy]

Personally I am surprised Ralph is seemingly settling on letting Ings see out his contract and then letting him leave for nothing. 

I assume Ralph has managed to see into the future and seen that Ings will go all season without an injury, and also foreseen that Ings will give 100% effort even though he will be leaving. 

Far too risky for me and a good chance of wasting a possible 20 million plus in to get a replacement. 

[once_bitterne]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Were you upset with the club signing Diallo, Salisu and Walker-Peters in the last summer transfer window?

It's difficult to defend the club's transfer business going back as far as when Koeman left.  Yes, last season was better than the abject windows that brought us Hoedt, Lemina, Carrillo, Lemina, Elywotsit and the rest of Les Reed's Donkey sanctuary but even that wasn't all that amazing.  KWP is an obvious success but was low risk as we had him on loan prior to signing.  Salisu did ok but was no more than a squad player/fill-in FB and Diallo was dropped for a lot of games towards the end of the season by RH.

[Chez]

10 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I would not let him leave for £20mill, utterly pointless if we get relegated. Wouldn't be worth listening to anything below £30mill.

Face it, if he goes we are probably fucked. I have little faith in the current set up landing a goalscorer close to the ability of Ings regardless of what fee we get.

 

 

So next summer, when he leaves on a free, then we are `probably fucked', right?

You may well be right (losing talent doesn't make you better thats for sure) and the current set up may well spunk the money we get for him up the wall, but if they don't get any money how can they/we hope to replace him?

Kicking the can down the road is not a plan. This is the summer to have money as it will go long way. Many teams are on their knees financially. If we have a few quid in our pocket we should be able to get some talent.

[once_bitterne]

1 minute ago, Saint Billy said:

Personally I am surprised Ralph is seemingly settling on letting Ings see out his contract and then letting him leave for nothing. 

I assume Ralph has managed to see into the future and seen that Ings will go all season without an injury, and also foreseen that Ings will give 100% effort even though he will be leaving. 

Far too risky for me and a good chance of wasting a possible 20 million plus in to get a replacement. 

I doubt it's Ralph's decision to make.

Getting relegated is far more risky and with the club getting £2m for every place higher up the table it finishes the risk of him staying isn't all that great.

[Chez]

1 minute ago, Saint Billy said:

Personally I am surprised Ralph is seemingly settling on letting Ings see out his contract and then letting him leave for nothing. 

I assume Ralph has managed to see into the future and seen that Ings will go all season without an injury, and also foreseen that Ings will give 100% effort even though he will be leaving. 

Far too risky for me and a good chance of wasting a possible 20 million plus in to get a replacement. 

personally I'm not even thinking about the possibility that he might not score goals this coming season. I'm looking at next summer and having zero to spend on his replacement. But you make a fair point. No club wants a player to leave on a free. Sometimes its out of their hands, but its just terrible business and as the world keeps on telling us fans, `football is a business these days', so with that in mind you just cant allow assets to depreciate from £20m (or whatever) to nothing in just 12 months (when you can avoid it).

[Badger]

2 minutes ago, once_bitterne said:

I doubt it's Ralph's decision to make.

Getting relegated is far more risky and with the club getting £2m for every place higher up the table it finishes the risk of him staying isn't all that great.

Unless he does a VVD.

That said, I'd be inclined to keep him unless we get a decent (£30m) offer and in good time. The timing of this isn't great though and I fear this will run up until the deadline in the fall out of whatever happens to Kane.

[once_bitterne]

Staying for one more season benefits both parties.  With his average and injury prone last season, Ings stock is way lower than it was 12 months ago.  If he does well next season his options/wage levels will be much better and he can expect a massive signing bonus as his new club will be getting an out of contract player.

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, Chez said:

So next summer, when he leaves on a free, then we are `probably fucked', right?

You may well be right (losing talent doesn't make you better thats for sure) and the current set up may well spunk the money we get for him up the wall, but if they don't get any money how can they/we hope to replace him?

Kicking the can down the road is not a plan. This is the summer to have money as it will go long way. Many teams are on their knees financially. If we have a few quid in our pocket we should be able to get some talent.

Absolutely. Take the £25m or whatever and use it. Leicester have just got Patson Daku for £23m, there is talent out there at a good price. It's crazy to let him walk away for nothing as we'll still have to spend the same amount of money on a replacement without anything coming in and we are a sell to buy club. Sell him and Vestergaard. 

[Chez]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Absolutely. Take the £25m or whatever and use it. Leicester have just got Patson Daku for £23m, there is talent out there at a good price. It's crazy to let him walk away for nothing as we'll still have to spend the same amount of money on a replacement without anything coming in and we are a sell to buy club. Sell him and Vestergaard. 

I am not a great scout, but from what little I have seen of Patson, I could have lived with that deal. He's a pacey, extremely confident two footed finisher. I think Leicester may have got a gem there. We shall see.

It's going to be a gamble no matter who we sign to replace Ings, and as we have seen you can easily waste millions, but having money in your pocket does broaden the number and type of players you can go for. 

[the saint in winchester]

3 hours ago, alehouseboys said:

Basically, if someone wants him now they're gonna have to pay what we want. If Levy gets £100m for Kane and comes calling stick another £10m on.

Man City have already offered £100M, but Levy wants £150M, not a penny less. I can't see that deal going through, and so consequentially I can't see the right offer for Ings coming.

[Matthew Le God]

18 minutes ago, once_bitterne said:

It's difficult to defend the club's transfer business going back as far as when Koeman left.  Yes, last season was better than the abject windows that brought us Hoedt, Lemina, Carrillo, Lemina, Elywotsit and the rest of Les Reed's Donkey sanctuary but even that wasn't all that amazing.  KWP is an obvious success but was low risk as we had him on loan prior to signing.  Salisu did ok but was no more than a squad player/fill-in FB and Diallo was dropped for a lot of games towards the end of the season by RH.

He said 'current setup'. You can't judge Matt Crocker on players igned before he joined.

[Chez]

7 minutes ago, once_bitterne said:

Staying for one more season benefits both parties.  

we get him and his goals for another season, but when he goes the following summer on a free, financially its a shit show. 

Question. If he was going this summer on a free (instead of next), who realistically would we sign as his replacement? 

[Wurzel]

My mind keeps going back to a while back and Semmens coment to the effect of being surprised that the takeover - actually investment was the way he phrased it - hadn't already happened. Maybe the club are prepared to let him run down his contact as they are confident we'll have funds to replace him - if indeed he doesn't change his mind - in 12 months time.

 

[TWar]

Just now, Chez said:

Question. If he was going this summer on a free (instead of next), who realistically would we sign as his replacement? 

Armstrong probably. We can afford ~£13m on a player if we need them as shown by the Perraud transfer. We can have a small net spend and also we can sell some fringe players.

[Christophenburg]

I can't see the logic in people arguing we should let him run his contract down - no incentive to put in 100% effort (he'll get a transfer anyway), huge risk if he gets injured, and nothing to invest in a replacement. It's like running your car into the ground and then still needing to drive to work the next day

[LuckyNumber7]

3 hours ago, SuperSAINT said:

We wanted £35m for hojbjerg.

£20m would do it, IMO.

But Hojbjerg was nowhere near as important to us as Ings is.

Personally I wouldn't sell for any less than £30M. Get Adam Armstrong in now to have a season of bedding in and next summer when Ings goes look to bring in another young/cheapish striker.

Another thing to note is I believe Liverpool have a sell-on clause so that reduces the fee we get even further.

Edited 5 July, 2021 by LuckyNumber7

[Chez]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

Armstrong probably. We can afford ~£13m on a player if we need them as shown by the Perraud transfer. We can have a small net spend and also we can sell some fringe players.

fair enough, but like you say, we've spent money on Perraud - so a small net spend already. How much do you think we have to spend this summer?

What fringe players are you thinking we can get income from? Lemina, maybe?

 

[tajjuk]

There is an outside possibility in this that maybe this is just his/his agents attempt to drum up interest, like a come and get me plea, and that really there is still an outside chance if no one comes in he'll sign.

But personally I say sell, we've got one good season from him in 3, he's basically played one full season in what 5? The other have all been stop start and injury hit. Odds on that this season he'll not play much more than 25 ish games based on his fitness record. Then you have the worry in the second half of the season he'll potentially have a move lined up and will then phone it in not wanting to jeopardise that.

I say take the £20 - 30 million, push for the most we can get because he's English and proven PL goalscorer, so should be more than Hojberg for example, and then take the cash AND that big contract we were going to offer him and get the best talent in Europe we can find, as others have said £20 million odd in the this window could go far with Covid, if someone highly rated like Daka is only going for that amount there is a real gem to be found, and it seems like Armstrong was an additional signing anyway we could already budget for. 

So you then get the new guy in, and Armstrong, and hope that out of the 3 someone replaces Ings goals.  

[Chez]

3 minutes ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

But Hojbjerg was nowhere near as important to us as Ings is.

Personally I wouldn't sell for any less than £30M. Get Adam Armstrong in now to have a season of bedding in and next summer when Ings goes look to bring in another young/cheapish striker.

buy another striker now and then another next summer...with what funds? We have fuck all money. We took out a £70m loan to keep the wolves from the door and that debt will rise to £100m in five years time without repayments. If we keep spending and never start paying it off, where does it end?

I know as fans we should just concentrate on the football and let the club worry about the finances...

[davefizzy14]

I'm for one am still hoping Danny will sign a new contract. He's our star player

[Chez]

1 minute ago, tajjuk said:

There is an outside possibility in this that maybe this is just his/his agents attempt to drum up interest, like a come and get me plea, and that really there is still an outside chance if no one comes in he'll sign.

For me its a clear advert from the agent - negotiations are over with Saints, come and talk to me. Strange that he has to do that. Everyone knows he has one year left. You'd of thought if a club fancied him, they'd of been talking to him by now. 

 

[LuckyNumber7]

4 minutes ago, Chez said:

buy another striker now and then another next summer...with what funds? We have fuck all money. We took out a £70m loan to keep the wolves from the door and that debt will rise to £100m in five years time without repayments. If we keep spending and never start paying it off, where does it end?

I know as fans we should just concentrate on the football and let the club worry about the finances...

We may be skint but that doesn't mean we literally have zero to spend. There is still the annual TV and prize monies, crowds should be back next season plus we will sell a few more.

Armstrong is being rumoured at £10-15M which should be just about within our reach. Then there's that guy from the Portuguese league we've been linked with (Ellis I think), who was being touted around £5-7M IIRC.

Only the board really know what we are capable of spending and they are seemingly fine with keeping him if we don't get a decent offer. Selling now for around £20M doesn't help us a great deal imo.

[tajjuk]

5 minutes ago, Chez said:

For me its a clear advert from the agent - negotiations are over with Saints, come and talk to me. Strange that he has to do that. Everyone knows he has one year left. You'd of thought if a club fancied him, they'd of been talking to him by now. 

 

Yeh which to me suggests maybe their hasn't been much interest. 

[TWar]

27 minutes ago, Chez said:

fair enough, but like you say, we've spent money on Perraud - so a small net spend already. How much do you think we have to spend this summer?

What fringe players are you thinking we can get income from? Lemina, maybe?

 

I think a fair value for the players we might sell would be:

Ings - £20-25m

Vestergaard £15-20m

Gunn - £5m (gone)

Lemina - £7m

Elyounoussi - £6m

Forster (maybe, if we find the funds for a new first choice GK) - £3m

Obafemi - £5m

Misc other players (Nlundulu, Long, Valery) ~ £5m (together, if we are lucky plus a few other youth products, could be as low as £2m for all)

That yield an approximate budget of about £65m. Last couple of seasons we've had a net spend of £10m and £25m respectively.

From this best case scenario is about £90m.

Now realistically speaking we will probably struggle to shift a bunch of the above as you never sell everyone you want to so we likely will only make about £50-55m probably, and the net spend during COVID is probably going to be closer to the £10m of 2020 summer than the £25m of 2019.

Given all that I estimate maybe about £60-70m.

Split as, for example:

£13m Perraud

£15m Armstrong

£10-15m Vestergaard replacement

£10m back up fullback

£15-20m attacking mid

A couple of loans (one fullback, one striker maybe)

All a bit of guesswork really. Could be less could be more, depends how we sell and whats available in the market. Wouldn't be surprised to see a loan with an obligation to push a signing onto next season too.

Edited 5 July, 2021 by TWar

[Chez]

4 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

Yeh which to me suggests maybe their hasn't been much interest. 

...so a strange decision to call time on Saints negotiations. Always worth having us as fall back you'd of thought.

[LiberalCommunist]

Can't really blame Danny. We don't look like a very ambitious set up at present. 

But, I really hope we don't roll over. If we let him run his contract down and he stays injury free, it'll be the best £20M we've ever spent!

[Saint Billy]

4 minutes ago, LiberalCommunist said:

Can't really blame Danny. We don't look like a very ambitious set up at present. 

But, I really hope we don't roll over. If we let him run his contract down and he stays injury free, it'll be the best £20M we've ever spent!

The chances of him staying injury free for a whole season are very remote wouldn't you say. 

[East Kent Saint]

Look he wants to go , if he stayed we would get a Mane style season from him , play well against potential buyers then go through the motions to avoid injury in the rest ....................

[Lee On Solent Saint]

If he thinks he's going to play week in, week out for the top 6 sides, he's deluded. If he goes, the only place he may get regular game time is Arsenal. I don't think for one moment Kane is leaving Spurs. This is lined up for him going to Everton or West Ham. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Chez said:

personally I'm not even thinking about the possibility that he might not score goals this coming season. I'm looking at next summer and having zero to spend on his replacement. But you make a fair point. No club wants a player to leave on a free. Sometimes its out of their hands, but its just terrible business and as the world keeps on telling us fans, `football is a business these days', so with that in mind you just cant allow assets to depreciate from £20m (or whatever) to nothing in just 12 months (when you can avoid it).

Agreed. If he's not renewing then he's leaving. The choice is whether it's next year for nothing, or now for whatever we can get. He's a cracking player, and it's a shame to lose him, but this is about getting some cash to get someone new in.

[Chez]

2 minutes ago, TWar said:

I think likely now:

Ings - £20-25m

Vestergaard £15-20m

Gunn - £5m (gone)

Lemina - £7m

Elyounoussi - £6m

Forster - £3m

Obafemi - £5m

Misc other players (Nlundulu, Long, Valery) ~ £5m (together, if we are lucky plus a few other youth products, could be as low as £2m for all)

That yield an approximate budget of about £65m. Last couple of seasons we've had a net spend of £10m and £25m respectively.

From this best case scenario is about £90m. Now realistically speaking we will probably struggle to shift a bunch of the above as you never sell everyone you want to so we likely will only make about £50-55m probably, and the net spend during COVID is probably going to be closer to the £10m of 2020 summer than the £25m of 2019.

Given all that I estimate maybe about £60-70m.

Split as, for example:

£13m Perraud

£15m Armstrong

£10-15m Vestergaard replacement

£10m back up fullback

£15-20m attacking mid

A couple of loans (one fullback, one striker maybe)

All a bit of guesswork really. Could be less could be more, depends how we sell and whats available in the market. Wouldn't be surprised to see a loan with an obligation to push a signing onto next season too.

Firstly, what happened last summer or previous summers matters little. Covid will have decimated our finances and you don't take a £70m loan out at 8% if you have cash to spare on transfers. Whatever we spend will be determined by the size of the offers for Ings and Vestergaard. I think your valuations seem fair, but I've no idea if anyone really wants Vestegaard. The rest however, I have massive doubts.

The Gunn deal is £2.5m with add ons. And that's from a Premiership side. That's how little money there is swilling around the game at the moment. Whether City see a percentage of that, I am not so sure.

An important factor here is that I can't see many championship sides spending money this summer. Maybe the odd club, (Swansea spent a massive £1m on a striker last week) but realistically which championship club this summer (with the covid crippling them) is (and only championship sides are gonna look at him) buying Obafemi for £5m?

You wont get a penny for Nlundulu, Long and Valery. We will be paying some of Long's wages to shift him and Valery too.

Seriously, who is giving us money for Forster and Elyounoussi? On the wages they are on, we'd need to allow them to go for free to tempt anyone. Celtic loved Forster but didn't have the finances. Who does?

We might get something for Lemina, possibly £5m at a stretch, but if I was a Prem side looking at him, I'd just offer a loan to us and then if he works out sign him next summer. If I was a betting man, that's what will happen.

My maths makes that £2.5m of income, perhaps rising to £5m, possibly. We've probably spent exactly that on the first years' payment for Perraud. 

 

 

[Hodgey]

Terrible situation to be in. You need to score goals to avoid trouble esp when you can’t defend. He wins games - simple as, we’ve got to hope the attacking midfielders step up and actually contribute - and that Che learns to use his left foot (unforgivable for a pro footballer). I think we will sell and will face a huge relegation battle - lots of championship quality players in our squad - Walcott, Long (actually l1), Bednerak, Adams, Redmond, Djenepo, McCarthy, Forster I could go on. Personally I think the gamble of keeping him for another year and risking injury / low effort is a gamble worth taking. In a year one of the youngsters could step up / Adams might improve / we might have a new owner. Or he might resign in Jan !!!

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Chez said:

So next summer, when he leaves on a free, then we are `probably fucked', right?

You may well be right (losing talent doesn't make you better thats for sure) and the current set up may well spunk the money we get for him up the wall, but if they don't get any money how can they/we hope to replace him?

Kicking the can down the road is not a plan. This is the summer to have money as it will go long way. Many teams are on their knees financially. If we have a few quid in our pocket we should be able to get some talent.

It all depends on what targets we have that we could realistically land this summer and what players Ralph thinks may be ready to take Ings place next season. Kicking the can down the road for another season could be the best option if the alternative is relegation this season. Only someone who knows all the options can really make the call.

[TWar]

15 minutes ago, Chez said:

Firstly, what happened last summer or previous summers matters little. Covid will have decimated our finances and you don't take a £70m loan out at 8% if you have cash to spare on transfers. Whatever we spend will be determined by the size of the offers for Ings and Vestergaard. I think your valuations seem fair, but I've no idea if anyone really wants Vestegaard. The rest however, I have massive doubts.

The Gunn deal is £2.5m with add ons. And that's from a Premiership side. That's how little money there is swilling around the game at the moment. Whether City see a percentage of that, I am not so sure.

An important factor here is that I can't see many championship sides spending money this summer. Maybe the odd club, (Swansea spent a massive £1m on a striker last week) but realistically which championship club this summer (with the covid crippling them) is (and only championship sides are gonna look at him) buying Obafemi for £5m?

You wont get a penny for Nlundulu, Long and Valery. We will be paying some of Long's wages to shift him and Valery too.

Seriously, who is giving us money for Forster and Elyounoussi? On the wages they are on, we'd need to allow them to go for free to tempt anyone. Celtic loved Forster but didn't have the finances. Who does?

We might get something for Lemina, possibly £5m at a stretch, but if I was a Prem side looking at him, I'd just offer a loan to us and then if he works out sign him next summer. If I was a betting man, that's what will happen.

My maths makes that £2.5m of income, perhaps rising to £5m, possibly. We've probably spent exactly that on the first years' payment for Perraud. 

 

 

I have the Gunn deal as 5m with Add-ons. I think it is £2.5 up top but that's pretty standard to pay over time. Either way, they are all just estimates we'll wait and see how they all pan out.

[S-Clarke]

It is a rubbish situation to be in, but I think it's been inevitable from day dot really. If he wanted to sign he'd have signed a long, long time ago.

The situation is exasperated by the fact we have no money, not a single pot to piss in. So we can't replace him until he's gone.

But, do we risk letting him go now and taking the gamble on someone like Adam Armstrong?

Or do we keep him until the end of his contract and only have loose change to spend on a replacement?

It's all a bit shit really. In an ideal world you accept he's going, buy his 'replacement' now but keep Ings until his contract is up so you have the best of both worlds. But because we can only spend money when we sell it kind of makes that approach a non-starter.

We need new ownership, it's like watching a slow death at the moment.

[Paulwantsapint81]

Are the club saying 4 years or no deal?

As we know the contracts mean nothing if a bid comes in but would Danny take a 1-2 year deal & be allowed to go if a sensible offer was made?

[S-Clarke]

4 minutes ago, Paulwantsapint81 said:

Are the club saying 4 years or no deal?

As we know the contracts mean nothing if a bid comes in but would Danny take a 1-2 year deal & be allowed to go if a sensible offer was made?

All that really does is kick the can down the road to be honest. Doesn't really change much, we'll be in the same position in a year's time and he'll probably be worth less than he is now.

The thing with Ings is that he's not going to generate interest tomorrow, he's the sort of player that clubs are going to look at during the back end of august when options 1, 2 and 3 haven't gone through. No disrespect to Danny, but that's how it is really. How that affects our ability to replace is interesting, it may be a late rally.

Edited 5 July, 2021 by S-Clarke

[Chez]

41 minutes ago, TWar said:

I have the Gunn deal as 5m with Add-ons. I think it is £2.5 up top but that's pretty standard to pay over time. Either way, they are all just estimates we'll wait and see how they all pan out.

Good news. Every million will matter.

[Cartman]

Nothing we didn't already know. Think this will come down to who blinks first, Ings says that if we don't sell him now we will lose him for free next year while Saints say that we don't believe he will take the risk of a serious injury right before he is out of contract, is just looking for the best possible terms on what will be his last big contract and will sign after the end of the window if no one comes up with a proper transfer fee.

[Lee On Solent Saint]

17 minutes ago, Chez said:

Good news. Every million will matter.

Our shit form at the end of the season coming back to haunt us. 

[Lee On Solent Saint]

1 minute ago, Cartman said:

Nothing we didn't already know. Think this will come down to who blinks first, Ings says that if we don't sell him now we will lose him for free next year while Saints say that we don't believe he will take the risk of a serious injury right before he is out of contract, is just looking for the best possible terms on what will be his last big contract and will sign after the end of the window if no one comes up with a proper transfer fee.

That's all very well, but we need to do this on our terms. No good for us if a club comes in on the last day of the window for Ings, leaving us with zero chance of replacing. We need to make this decision before the start of the pre-season games. I know it will never happen, but ideally if he wants out, we need to put it out there that if he hasn't gone in the next three weeks, he stays for the season. None of this last minute transfer bullshit.