If Ings were to go to Arsenal that would quash the theory that he was leaving to try his hand at the next level, so I doubt it.
Sigh. Nothing changes does it. wish Danny well whatever but I think his ego has got carried away with itself. He’s getting on in years, is constantly walking the line between high performance and career ending injury and is already playing at the highest level. I don’t see a champions league club calling on his services honestly, too risky. EPL, FA cup, possibly Europa league are his level and he could potentially achieve all that at Saints. Unless we get 35-40m offers, with what we have to pay Pool as a sell on fee and if he is happy to stay then we should definitely keep him and bring in an apprentice to bed in around him.
What is risky about a free transfer? It's almost as risk-free as you can get. Sure there'd be his wages to pay. But that's chicken feed for the big boys.
Yeah, a free transfer is about as close to a guarantee as Ings can get. He'll be paid more as the average annual cost will be lower for the team even at a high wage, and he'll have suitors. And while "we'll let his contract run down" is a reasonable proposition, we're in a bad spot here: we can't really afford to let good players walk for nothing, not if we're going to replace them thereafter. But similarly, selling Ings means that we very much need to get his replacement right, or we stand a good chance of being relegation fodder. Not an easy choice.
We're in the EPL, so we're in a better finacial position that most clubs in europe, as long as we reman in the top flight. This season spending £10m is probably similar to spending our usual £15-18m. Many players will be available as smaller clubs than us try to offset he effects of the pandemic, European-wise we're at a decent place in the food-chain, and there's plenty of fish to go around.
Yeah but I was talking this window. He's not on a free yet so he'll be counting on a CL or Europa league club to come in with an offer before he can challenge himself at the next level. If he gets through the next season strong with goals to his name he will have many, many clubs knocking on his door. But based on his time here it's 50/50 as to whether he will do that. I just don't see the City's or Utd's paying big money with his age and injury record. How so Tom? I'm only going on what's been reported. Wants to challenge himself at a higher level is totally ego driven. If he'd come out and said that he wants to wait for a free transfer to secure one big final pay day I would have said he was being a bit greedy but wished him well. I love Danny and will be really sorry to see him go but like I said, I wish him well whatever. I don't think he is young enough or strong enough for a City or Utd starting position, he is reported as thinking differently. Good luck to him if he thinks he's got something to prove, I hope it works out.
There's also the reported 20% sell on fee going to Liverpool. If we sell Danny for 20m we are looking at 16m+ strikers and I can't see us getting Danny's quality for that. For 16m I would hang on and hope he has another 20 goal season. Of course, if someone offers upwards of 30mill we would be shopping around 24m+ and we could be looking at some good striker options. Prem survival makes 16m look like a small investment but its always a risk. we still need cover for Danny even if he stays as he can be out for a lot of the season if he's unlucky with injuries.
Depending on what Ings wants in terms of playing time I would say somewhere like Everton/West Ham would be his most likely options if we were to sell
The tricky part is that we'll have to replace in a year anyway, just with less money to do so. Letting his deal run down makes us more likely to survive this year, and less likely thereafter. Whether that tradeoff is worth it perhaps depends on the timing (and resources) of a possible sale of the club.
Spurs are looking at Haris Serefovic (29) for £27m, surely Ings would be the better option for them? It will be interesting if the news of Ings' contract rejection - and its timing - will attract an offer.
I think the timing of his refusal probably indicate’s there’s already an offer been made with negotiations started??
It is very unfair if you cherry pick that bold part and ignore all the rest of the post. But it isn’t exactly reasonable to do that, is it ?
But he hasn't put in a transfer request. He's rejected a new contract. Hence I would suggest that where he is concerned, it is about attracting a top club next summer rather than this summer. You mentioned about him getting carried away with himself - even if that is the case, I doubt he would be thinking that way in relation to this summer. We might well choose to sell him this summer - and in that case, I very much agree with you that the big boys won't be interested - but that would be our choice, rather than Ings'. And it's seems pretty clear through the media that we have zero intention of selling this summer unless a very decent offer comes in (which is very unlikely to happen, due to a mixture of his injury record, his age, and his free availability in 12 months). Essentially, at least in my book, the announcement yesterday hasn't changed anything this summer. It's exclusively to do with next summer.
This ^^^ Another possibility is that Danny has a storming first half if the season for us & then someone pops up to purchase him on the cheap Jan. Providing we’re safe, it might be easier to let him go then together with a few $’s
I'm not sure that I agree that a team won't come in for him, depending on circumstance. If Spurs lose Kane, they're going to get awfully sweaty and they already need at least one striker. Assuming that one of those strikers is a big-money import, a consistently-competent PL veteran who won't cost major money would make a fair bit of sense. Levy's cheap, but it's not like relieving us of players with one year remaining on their contract is exactly foreign to them.
