Well, Remy would surely be worth a go? What did Liverpool agree to pay QPR? £8.5million or something? The rest of the Long fee could go towards his wages.
Come on Joe, half sentences don't mean anything. What are you saying? He's 22, so he'll make it? I don't want to put Ings down, I'm just finding it amazing that so many people are slinging Ings name about (not those who have for a while), whenI'd suggest he isn't for sale! No ****er here knows that the board have chosen Long over Ings but most are behaving like that's what they've done. Ings has made it clear that he won't piss Burnley off and Burnley have said he is not for sale. Move on.
Have you seen the season Ings just had? For a 22 year old it is special, and almost a guarantee that he'd be a better investment than Long.
You think we will take a player on the wages he'd want? If you really think we can or we should, you really have saints in the wrong category. Who else? Plus the 8.5m fee was only to teams in the CL Next player?
Well I'd go for the young player. I agree that it would be a lot of money for an untested player though. The lesser of two evils if you like.
Hernandez said no Burnley won't sell Ings. I wouldn't say they were rubbished. We just moved on to option c.
You obviously havent read the three times in the last ten minutes that I said i havent seen him much. How do we get him if he's not for sale, or did you choose to ignore that part?
Plan C for me would have been to just wait and see what develops in the winter or the next transfer period. It's not that I hate Long, just that to me he's proven mediocrity who fits the classic "good player on a bad team" role. He works hard. He's fast. He's not completely talentless. He's a really good player to have if you are staving off relegation because you know he's mediocre and he'll give you his all. I think we have enough already not to worry about relegation. We need to do one of two things-- Get really good players who improve the side as starters or get young players who may blossom into stars but if not will at least improve and we can sell them for more than we paid. Long does neither of those things. I feel like he will prove to be a useful player, but we've wasted 6m by paying that much over his value. And if we want to strive for better things, we can ill-afford to do that.
We made enquires before we signed Long. So yes he was a option before Long. It even looked likely at one point but Burnley decided to keep him and hope he helps them stay up.
Then there should be better options than Shane Long for a giant pile of money. If there aren't, then we have really and truly ****ed the poodle in our transfer strategy.
It's not like we're short of money though, is it? Quite clearly not if we want to give Hull £12m for Long.
Exactly. We might not like that and we may all agree the fee seems way too high, but too many people behaving like spoiled kids. People listen: just because we are not signing someone like Ings and maybe signing Long, it doesn't mean we've chosen Long over Ings! How hard is that to understand?
