Danny Ings

[Maya's Dad]

While I have always said the board need to grow a backbone and hold out for bigger offers, would actually not mind if we get ings off the books and end all this. not worth all the fuss and this talk of "not ideal situation" for the next 12 months, especially if it means we can't move on with getting our targets early. 

[OldNick]

26 minutes ago, Saint Garrett said:

Seems to have gone from "Danny will be here next season" to "It's far from ideal situation".  
Sounds to me that it's moving towards him leaving, which would be a shame. I just hope we don't leave it so late, and then lose out on Armstrong deal because of it. It's a big summer and we don't seem to be winning it at the moment. Obviously still a long way to go til the end of the window, but I'm sure Ralph would prefer to have full squad in pre season.

It seems to me that the club are moving the fans mindset to accept Ings going. I feel it is sad tht Danny may leave us in a position that it is too late to replace him. 

I remember when there was talk of keegan leaving, that he came out to say he was staying and that helped with season ticket sales. A week or so later he had walked.

[the saint in winchester]

It sounds like the fans have accepted that Ings will likely be going. Not sure Ralph has accepted it yet. Sounds like Ralph still wants him to play on all season and leave for nothing more than a "see you around" which doesn't help our budget one bit.

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, the saint in winchester said:

It sounds like the fans have accepted that Ings will likely be going. Not sure Ralph has accepted it yet. Sounds like Ralph still wants him to play on all season and leave for nothing more than a "see you around" which doesn't help our budget one bit.

Quite easy to picture that if he leaves we go down, if he stays we stay up. In that scenario it certainly does help our budget, at least in the short term.

[beatlesaint]

10 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Quite easy to picture that if he leaves we go down, if he stays we stay up. In that scenario it certainly does help our budget, at least in the short term.

which is what we keep coming around to in my opinion. He is worth far more to the club if he stays another season then leaves on a free than if he goes now for £20 million.

I dont understnad why people cant see that. Ok the club is probably too arrogant to view it in those terms but on Planet Real World we are fucked without him becuase we know he will not be replaced with someone of the same quality. Now if someone was coming in who was proven then yeah, fine, bye then Danny but again whats the chances of that with a club that hasnt got a pot to piss in ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

42 minutes ago, the saint in winchester said:

It sounds like the fans have accepted that Ings will likely be going. Not sure Ralph has accepted it yet. Sounds like Ralph still wants him to play on all season and leave for nothing more than a "see you around" which doesn't help our budget one bit.

You can’t blame him, if he gets off to a poor start he’ll be toast after the way last season finished. If I were him, I’d want Ings next season regardless of whether it helps our budget or not. If Ings goes this summer, chances are Ralph will be following by the Jan window,  P45 in hand. 

[Mr X]

Wonder how much we offered him to be on the highest wages of any saint ever? Do you reckon 75k a week or not even that much? How much would he get at a top" club to be a bench warmer maybe £100k a week? 

Edited 19 July, 2021 by Mr X

[CB Fry]

11 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Wonder how much we offered him to be on the highest wages of any saint ever? Do you reckon 75k a week or not even that much? How much would he get at a top" club to be a bench warmer maybe £100k a week? 

We're already paying Forster more than that, so let's say more than that.

[SW5 SAINT]

56 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

which is what we keep coming around to in my opinion. He is worth far more to the club if he stays another season then leaves on a free than if he goes now for £20 million.

I dont understnad why people cant see that. Ok the club is probably too arrogant to view it in those terms but on Planet Real World we are fucked without him becuase we know he will not be replaced with someone of the same quality. Now if someone was coming in who was proven then yeah, fine, bye then Danny but again whats the chances of that with a club that hasnt got a pot to piss in ?

If we sell him for 20m, we only pocket about 16m after Liverpool have taken there cut…….I don’t see anyone offering Ings a mega bucks four year contract as an injury prone 30 year old. Highly unlikely if he’d accepted Saints offer would we have got  4 seasons of 15 to 20 goals worth out of him…….

Edited 19 July, 2021 by SW5 SAINT

[Dusic]

56 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

which is what we keep coming around to in my opinion. He is worth far more to the club if he stays another season then leaves on a free than if he goes now for £20 million.

I dont understnad why people cant see that. Ok the club is probably too arrogant to view it in those terms but on Planet Real World we are fucked without him becuase we know he will not be replaced with someone of the same quality. Now if someone was coming in who was proven then yeah, fine, bye then Danny but again whats the chances of that with a club that hasnt got a pot to piss in ?

The question that you have not answered is what happens the season after, when Ings leavea for free except we don't have money to replace him?

We know we have to replace him either this year or next so surely replacing him with the benefit of £20m is preferable to replacing him with zero.

If you look beyond one season there could be a massive difference in the replacement we could afford.

[SFC Forever]

I agree. If we keep him we have a year to find a reasonably good replacement. We can use the time picking someone that will fit our system. or maybe get someone that we can build our team around.

[MarkSFC]

Didn't spot him in the latest training video released by the club...🤔🤔🤔🤣🤣🤣

[beatlesaint]

39 minutes ago, Dusic said:

If you look beyond one season there could be a massive difference in the replacement we could afford.

Could be a massive difference what league we are playing in as well. A replacement would be cheaper in the Championship, I’ll give you that.

[Roo1976]

1 hour ago, Dusic said:

The question that you have not answered is what happens the season after, when Ings leavea for free except we don't have money to replace him?

We know we have to replace him either this year or next so surely replacing him with the benefit of £20m is preferable to replacing him with zero.

If you look beyond one season there could be a massive difference in the replacement we could afford.

Then the bloody chairman would have to stump up some investment , after all its owned by him ,and lets face it he should look after his clubs priority and remain afloat in the premier league right?

[Mr X]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

We're already paying Forster more than that, so let's say more than that.

We are paying more than £75k for Forster to not even play for us much? 

[CanadaSaint]

Saints can only play the cards they’re dealt, and we don’t have many good ones because he clearly wants to go and we are skint. Playing ANY cards in our situation involves risk, especially when the deck is skewed in the player’s favour.

In the absence of a crazy offer, of which we’d lose 20% to Liverpool, I’d be inclined to let Ings know that he can go in January, and then go hammer and tongs for Armstrong or someone similar.

That way we get a highly motivated Ings for the first half of the season, and an "heir apparent" who has some time to settle in (like Adams needed). The future income from the Ings sale funds the Armstrong signing. Any additional budget goes to other areas of need, of which there are several.

Not sure what else we can do and still retain some semblance of control.

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, Mr X said:

We are paying more than £75k for Forster to not even play for us much? 

Well, he was the undeniable first choice keeper when he signed his contract.

[verlaine1979]

1 hour ago, CanadaSaint said:

Saints can only play the cards they’re dealt, and we don’t have many good ones because he clearly wants to go and we are skint. Playing ANY cards in our situation involves risk, especially when the deck is skewed in the player’s favour.

In the absence of a crazy offer, of which we’d lose 20% to Liverpool, I’d be inclined to let Ings know that he can go in January, and then go hammer and tongs for Armstrong or someone similar.

That way we get a highly motivated Ings for the first half of the season, and an "heir apparent" who has some time to settle in (like Adams needed). The future income from the Ings sale funds the Armstrong signing. Any additional budget goes to other areas of need, of which there are several.

Not sure what else we can do and still retain some semblance of control.

If we can only get 20m for Ings now, he'll go for virtually nothing in January.

[CanadaSaint]

1 minute ago, verlaine1979 said:

If we can only get 20m for Ings now, he'll go for virtually nothing in January.

Not sure about that verlaine. The January window is known to be really bad for value - AKA a seller's market. In the Summer window pretty much everyone is fit, but in the January window, clubs (especially big clubs with lots of fixtures) are trying to cover for injured players. Huge money is at stake for them. It's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that Ings could go for more in January than he would now if a really big club is desperate.

But my main point is that there may be a way of hedging our bets, so that it's not an "all or nothing" situation. We could get half a season from Ings (and hopefully a lot of safety points) and also have time to get his replacement acclimatized in the club and up to speed with our style.

[derry]

I think we should keep Ings until his contract runs out unless in the absence of offers from top clubs or injury he signs the contract solving the problem. Ings is more use to the club playing for us than playing for some other club. He is ambitious, treading water will end any chance of international call ups. He will need to be playing well and scoring goals, That means to me we will get value albeit costing us 80% of any possible fee. Risking relegation for £16m doesn't add up. We should buy a replacement now and bed him in. With the £100m+ we wasted on a collection of expensive players that weren't good enough or didn't fit in was expensive. Another season from Ings is cheap in comparison.

[IOWSaintDaz]

wish Danny would just hurry up and pi$$ off now, if he wants his arse to warm a top 6 side's bench let him, if he wants to get another potential carreer ending injury to then eventually rot in a top 6 side's reserves on 100K+ week let him, if we keep him here until his contract is up there is no way he will put in the effort a full tilt Ings would give us and we would lose a fair chunk of cash too for a transfer fee although I expect the dippers have a sell on clause so we would see any sizeble fee swallowed up.

Better to get what we can for him (hopefully circ £25M) and move on, hopefully it will soon followed Vestagaard for another £25M and after a few games into the season when we are bottom by Hassenhuttl, i'm suprised he's still here at all after last seasons fiasco's after we beat the dippers it all went wrong.

Not impressed by our transfer acitivity or lack so far of it at all, put the money from these sales on players who want to be here and stop trying to convince them to stay it's pointless

[Ex Lion Tamer]

5 hours ago, beatlesaint said:

which is what we keep coming around to in my opinion. He is worth far more to the club if he stays another season then leaves on a free than if he goes now for £20 million.

I dont understnad why people cant see that. Ok the club is probably too arrogant to view it in those terms but on Planet Real World we are fucked without him becuase we know he will not be replaced with someone of the same quality. Now if someone was coming in who was proven then yeah, fine, bye then Danny but again whats the chances of that with a club that hasnt got a pot to piss in ?

If we replaced Ings with Armstrong would we definitely go down? If not then it would be good business as we'd have Armstrong for years to come rather than Ings for just a season

[Baird of the land]

If he’s not going to sign We really need to get a fee for him now if someone will bid and he’ll go.

Letting this drama play out to January where you get a minimal fee or have a halfhearted player for 2nd half of season and no money would not be good.

[Golac's Cunning Stunts]

3 hours ago, Baird of the land said:

If he’s not going to sign We really need to get a fee for him now if someone will bid and he’ll go.

Letting this drama play out to January where you get a minimal fee or have a halfhearted player for 2nd half of season and no money would not be good.

agreed. sell him now if he won't sign. It won't work trying to keep him if he doesn't want to stay

[Lee On Solent Saint]

3 hours ago, Baird of the land said:

If he’s not going to sign We really need to get a fee for him now if someone will bid and he’ll go.

Letting this drama play out to January where you get a minimal fee or have a halfhearted player for 2nd half of season and no money would not be good.

This will probably drag out until either the start of the season or the end of the window. If he is going, we need him gone as soon as, just so we can at least try to get a replacement in. 

[Saint Matty 76]

1 hour ago, Golac's Cunning Stunts said:

agreed. sell him now if he won't sign. It won't work trying to keep him if he doesn't want to stay

Do you not think that in the situation where he stays without signing a deal, he needs to play at his highest level to secure the best free transfer? There could definitely be an element where he's terrified to get injured, but you'd assume he'll be doing everything he can to impress.

[austsaint]

5 hours ago, derry said:

I think we should keep Ings until his contract runs out unless in the absence of offers from top clubs or injury he signs the contract solving the problem. Ings is more use to the club playing for us than playing for some other club. He is ambitious, treading water will end any chance of international call ups. He will need to be playing well and scoring goals, That means to me we will get value albeit costing us 80% of any possible fee. Risking relegation for £16m doesn't add up. We should buy a replacement now and bed him in. With the £100m+ we wasted on a collection of expensive players that weren't good enough or didn't fit in was expensive. Another season from Ings is cheap in comparison.

Yes, even if Ings stays, (and as you suggest, he is likely to put effort in given his ambitions) the Club surely needs to pursue a player like Armstrong so that he can both settle in and give the Club the best chance of staying afloat in the event of a late Ings departure or injury.    Even if it stretches the budget and increases the overdraft by 5 million or so - it has to be done.  Three strikers of the calibre of Ings, Adams and Armstrong is a bare minimum.  Trying to plug gaps with the likes of Tella or Obafemi is not going to cut it.

[verlaine1979]

7 hours ago, Saint Matty 76 said:

Do you not think that in the situation where he stays without signing a deal, he needs to play at his highest level to secure the best free transfer? There could definitely be an element where he's terrified to get injured, but you'd assume he'll be doing everything he can to impress.

No - he's a known quantity. As long as he's not crocked he'll get a very good contract as a free agent somewhere regardless of how hard he tries with us. He guarantees goals - someone will pay.

[Mr Brightside]

https://talksport.com/football/913913/danny-ings-transfer-news-tottenham-man-utd-man-city-southampton/

Nice dig at Spurs Alex. 

[david in sweden]

Few of us could blame Danny for wanting to get the best out of his career - whilst it lasts, but despite all the positives

there doesn't seem to be a queue at the door to buy him.

IF ...he stays until the end of his contract he'll be going on 30 and perhaps even fewer "big clubs" likely to take him on -

even as  a free transfer -  If that is the case then our 4 year deal may look more attractive by this time next year.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Mr Brightside said:

https://talksport.com/football/913913/danny-ings-transfer-news-tottenham-man-utd-man-city-southampton/

Nice dig at Spurs Alex. 

Nice dig, but it did come from Alex Crook, who also claimed 6 months ago Ings and Bertrand were set to be announced as signing new deals. 

[suewhistle]

I'd be inclined to keep him. Given the financial risk of relegation, plus the extra millions for a couple of places in the table set against ~20 million and a cut to Liverpool the risk of losing him for nothing doesn't seem so bad. Although the club's finances are bad at least we will be getting rid of the Forsters and Leminas of this world who we have been paying to play for other clubs. The club will be working on much better information than an internet forum and will no doubt be weighing all these aspects up.

Money seems to be tight all round - no spending at Everton yet, for example, so this is a difficult transfer window to call. The club haven't got much money, but by the looks of it we're not the only ones drawing in our belt.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, Mr Brightside said:

https://talksport.com/football/913913/danny-ings-transfer-news-tottenham-man-utd-man-city-southampton/

Nice dig at Spurs Alex. 

Nice dig? Childish , if you ask me. 
 

Big club, great stadium, bigger wages, I don’t reckon any of our players would turn them down. 

[the saint in winchester]

19 hours ago, Ex Lion Tamer said:

If we replaced Ings with Armstrong would we definitely go down? If not then it would be good business as we'd have Armstrong for years to come rather than Ings for just a season

Ah finally, someone sees it the way I do. Those says Ings is the difference between staying up and going down seem to base it on not replacing him ie. having an empty squad number. Get £25-30M for Ings now, spend half of it on A.Armstrong on a 4 year contract, probably on a lower wage, and we have our Ings replacement and money in the bank as well.

I don't go along with 'the only way we can stay up is with Ings'. Other players are available.

[MarkSFC]

5 minutes ago, the saint in winchester said:

Ah finally, someone sees it the way I do. Those says Ings is the difference between staying up and going down seem to base it on not replacing him ie. having an empty squad number. Get £25-30M for Ings now, spend half of it on A.Armstrong on a 4 year contract, probably on a lower wage, and we have our Ings replacement and money in the bank as well.

I don't go along with 'the only way we can stay up is with Ings'. Other players are available.

I agree with your overall point but I doubt we will get much over 20m for Ings. 

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, MarkSFC said:

I agree with your overall point but I doubt we will get much over 20m for Ings. 

If that. All we can bank on is one more season from him before he gets put out to stud or whatever they do with old footballers these days. If he were to sign a new contract with us it would be expensive and still not be enough for us.

[Sunglasses Ron]

32 minutes ago, the saint in winchester said:

Ah finally, someone sees it the way I do. Those says Ings is the difference between staying up and going down seem to base it on not replacing him ie. having an empty squad number. Get £25-30M for Ings now, spend half of it on A.Armstrong on a 4 year contract, probably on a lower wage, and we have our Ings replacement and money in the bank as well.

I don't go along with 'the only way we can stay up is with Ings'. Other players are available.

I agree with your overall point too but I'm not 100% convinced Armstrong would hit the ground running like Ings probably would next season.

By all accounts, Ings has been offered a really good deal by us, so I still wouldn't be surprised if he considered signing it at the end of the transfer window (if none of his preferred suitors came his way, and the offer was still on the table).

[SFC Forever]

why don't we just go and get Armstrong if we still want him. Waiting for Ings to go or stay is simply futile.

[SuperSAINT]

2 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

why don't we just go and get Armstrong if we still want him. Waiting for Ings to go or stay is simply futile.

Probably can’t afford him yet.

[TWar]

12 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

Probably can’t afford him yet.

Yeah wages I'd imagine. Lemina out Armstrong in imo.

[SFC Forever]

that works for me

[OldNick]

Ings will not guarantee us staying up, but he would improve our chances. Problem is we are saddling ourselves with another big salary for 4 years, that will in time weigh us down if he is not firing. Those injuries from his past will surely slow him as he gets older. Tell him to sign or go I suggest

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, the saint in winchester said:

Ah finally, someone sees it the way I do. Those says Ings is the difference between staying up and going down seem to base it on not replacing him ie. having an empty squad number. 

What a straw man. Who on Earth thinks we’ll have one less in the squad if Ings goes. Nobody I’ve read. The issue is a replacement being worse than Ings, therefore weakening an already poor squad. 

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I think we have to sign Armstrong this summer and then see if Ings stays or goes

[CanadaSaint]

23 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Ings will not guarantee us staying up, but he would improve our chances. Problem is we are saddling ourselves with another big salary for 4 years, that will in time weigh us down if he is not firing. Those injuries from his past will surely slow him as he gets older. Tell him to sign or go I suggest

That's my concern. Granted, there are some top strikers in-play this window, and there's some waiting going on, but the fact that we've (supposedly) had no enquiries for Ings makes me wonder if we're over-valuing him (for a club of our size) with the contract offer. And a year or two hence this forum will be talking about him in the same terms as others we've over-committed to contract-wise. But in his case it's less about talent level or the risk of lost form, and more about durability. We can't afford any more contract clangers that haunt us for seasons.

I really think our best bet may be to get Armstrong, give him half a season to settle without the pressure of being our "#1 Striker", and let Danny go in January after he's spent that half-season scoring goals, proving his value to the big clubs, and helping us to get points in the bank.

Sure it's risky, but we're up to our ying-yangs in risk right now.

[Wade Garrett]

There may not have been official interest in Ings, but he must have been tapped up.

[Dusic]

2 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

There may not have been official interest in Ings, but he must have been tapped up.

Like Armstrong, yes.

I can see him at Spurs, probably the best chance of getting in the England squad would be to forge a good partnership with Kane.

Spurs will probably offer £10m in installments. Saints will brief that they reluctantly want £30m.

Then he will go for £20m with Spurs briefing it was £15m and Saints that it was closer to £25m.

We never sign replacements before the sale so feels like Ings departure, and probably Vestergaard's is key to being able to make signings.

Can anyone see Ings in today's training pics? I couldn't.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, Dusic said:

Like Armstrong, yes.

I can see him at Spurs, probably the best chance of getting in the England squad would be to forge a good partnership with Kane.

Spurs will probably offer £10m in installments. Saints will brief that they reluctantly want £30m.

Then he will go for £20m with Spurs briefing it was £15m and Saints that it was closer to £25m.

We never sign replacements before the sale so feels like Ings departure, and probably Vestergaard's is key to being able to make signings.

Can anyone see Ings in today's training pics? I couldn't.

Do you think Kane will be there very long? 

[Dusic]

7 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Do you think Kane will be there very long? 

Who knows? It won't be easy for City to sign him I don't think and Levy isn't a pushover.

Probably depends whether Kane is prepared to ruin his image and be an arse.

[Baird of the land]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What a straw man. Who on Earth thinks we’ll have one less in the squad if Ings goes. Nobody I’ve read. The issue is a replacement being worse than Ings, therefore weakening an already poor squad. 

If you kick the can down the road 12 months and then have to replace Ings without having generated any money from his sale that seems a much more certain way to weaken the squad.