As I've said before, nothing wrong with signing Ings as long as he's not the only striker we sign.
Why do we need him?
What will he provide that we don't already have?
11 goals in the prem?
As I've said before, nothing wrong with signing Ings as long as he's not the only striker we sign.
And how many games did he play in? Will he get the same amount of games at LFC?
Can't assume that he will get 10 goals at LFC because he simply won't play as many games. Why waste £6m of the limited funds we have signing back up players?
And his conversion rate is awful.

He will of the other option is balotelli or Lambert![]()
Why do we need him?
What will he provide that we don't already have?

He's a striker and we don't have any.
Seriously though if we pretty much get rid of everyone other than Sturridge then add Ings, Origi and 1 really top player then we have a much better forward line than we do right now (although that's not difficult).
My concern is that Ings and Origi are the only 2 we are going to get.
I don't mind going for Ings but only AFTER we have fixed the first team.
Spending £6m on Ings, and a big signing on fee + wages for Milner is just a waste of resources.
Agreed he's better than Lambert but he's not better than Mario.
Nothing suggests that Ings is suited to our style (or the style us fans think we play).
I don't mind going for Ings but only AFTER we have fixed the first team.
Spending £6m on Ings, and a big signing on fee + wages for Milner is just a waste of resources.
I don't see the £6mil for Ings being at the expense of a better player. He's a borini replacement really and there are plenty of funds for the other positions.
That makes zero sense. How can he better than one player we already have but worse than a even weaker player we already have...?