Jump to content

Injury Watch


Roger

Recommended Posts

Echo says felt his hamstring could miss Cardiff game.

 

I'm hoping it's just precautionary. He had only just come back from his hammy injury and played the full 90 in midweek against Palace. If it was feeling a little tight then it was probably wise to take him off when we did rather than risk doing any more damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the number is and I did ask. If true, then I can imagine he'll be bench more towards the end of the season if we are safe but that's pure speculation on my part.

 

If it is true it is even barmier not to have got a new striker in, even on loan, in the transfer window just gone. Which could just mean ongoing general transfer incompetence, or that it is just not true. Or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say these two elements could probably have been found at about earlier, moving onto the next targets

 

You're over-simplifying the situation.

 

You identify your targets early on and begin negotiations, on the understanding that a deal 'could' be reached if it is right for all parties. The selling clubs and the agents hold out til the very last minute in the hopes of getting the best possible deal; and so does the buying club, hoping that as the window draws to a close the seller will be desperate enough to sell that they will cave in and drop to your lower offer. In most cases, this doesn't happen and the deal doesn't go through. This is why you have multiple targets, in the hope that if one falls through, another can be completed.

 

It's not exclusive to Saints by any means, and it doesn't prove that the board are incompetent. Look at how many rumours were flying around about other club's transfer targets, and compare that to how many of them actually materialised. There are only a handful of clubs in England who are either rich enough or stupid enough to pay the over-inflated valuations of players in January. Ours is not one of them. Whether you think that is a good thing or a bad thing is up to you, but personally I am glad we're no longer in the business of throwing good money after bad, following Les Reed's disastrous transfer strategy over the last few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sure if it goes on like this we would be mad to make Ing's loan deal permanent in the summer. This really will be a tough decision for the club as the lad is clearly talented as we saw with his worldie against Arsenal but we just don't have enough money to indulge in sentimentality.

 

Presumably they'll give Carillo & Boufal every chance of rehabilitation before pressing any buttons on Ings. Right now I'd be doing whatever it takes to get Augustin in the summer and let Danny go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sure if it goes on like this we would be mad to make Ing's loan deal permanent in the summer. This really will be a tough decision for the club as the lad is clearly talented as we saw with his worldie against Arsenal but we just don't have enough money to indulge in sentimentality.

 

Presumably they'll give Carillo & Boufal every chance of rehabilitation before pressing any buttons on Ings. Right now I'd be doing whatever it takes to get Augustin in the summer and let Danny go.

 

yep. or the only other option I can see is that if we are forced to buy, then offer a contract with heavy incentives based on appearances/goal contributions but a lower basic wage

 

(I doubt he would accept a pay as you play contract of course- are these even about anymore?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sure if it goes on like this we would be mad to make Ing's loan deal permanent in the summer. This really will be a tough decision for the club as the lad is clearly talented as we saw with his worldie against Arsenal but we just don't have enough money to indulge in sentimentality.

 

Presumably they'll give Carillo & Boufal every chance of rehabilitation before pressing any buttons on Ings. Right now I'd be doing whatever it takes to get Augustin in the summer and let Danny go.

 

I thought we were committed to buying Ings. You would have hoped that some sort of clause regarding availability might have been inserted, but this is Southampton......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep. or the only other option I can see is that if we are forced to buy, then offer a contract with heavy incentives based on appearances/goal contributions but a lower basic wage

 

(I doubt he would accept a pay as you play contract of course- are these even about anymore?)

It's a loan with an obligation to buy. Which would mean the contract he signed covers next season and beyond and is non-negotiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what was reported by The Daily Echo at the time...

 

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/16409919.southampton-sign-danny-ings-on-loan-from-liverpool-on-transfer-deadline-day/

Danny Ings has made an emotional homecoming after the Saints fan signed for the club he loves in a dramatic deadline day deal.

 

The 26-year-old striker, who grew up playing football on Netley Recreation Ground, was a shock late signing for Saints.

 

Indeed, the move came so late in the day that Saints had to submit a deal sheet to the Premier League to grant them a two-hour extension to the transfer window to get the deal done.

 

Ings has joined from Liverpool on loan for the rest of the season ahead of a permanent switch next summer for a fee of £16m.

 

Don't think it's terrible value at £16m in todays market. but seems like it's obligatory, not an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And be sued for breech of contract

 

Naive, no is not a strong word in contract law. We will also have already paid a substantial instalment so technically "we don't still have the cash". Sooner some people realise we have already bought Danny Ings the better, there is no getting out of it even if we wanted to. The loan is a technicality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully and end of season rest and then a proper, full pre season (which he didnt have this year) would really help him.

 

For £16m he is good value IMO. You don't get much for that and he is a quality player, plus clearly has a connection with the club.

 

A bigger problem is the other strikers when he isnt available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully and end of season rest and then a proper, full pre season (which he didnt have this year) would really help him.

 

For £16m he is good value IMO. You don't get much for that and he is a quality player, plus clearly has a connection with the club.

 

A bigger problem is the other strikers when he isnt available.

 

Totally agree. Danny obviously wants to be the number one striker but he cant expect that to be the case with a constant injury record. If hes here next season as our 2nd or 3rd choice then I would be pretty happy.

 

Augustin (or Poulsen), Adams, Ings, Obafemi and Barnes would be good depth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully and end of season rest and then a proper, full pre season (which he didnt have this year) would really help him.

 

You're just reheating the same straw-clutching bargaining that has been Charlie Austin's domain for the past three years: if he can only get a full pre season under his belt...

 

How's that worked out? Austin actually, finally managed to get fit for the start of this season, but he's still a physical wreck that we can't even sell for scrap.

 

The good news with Ings is at least his popodom knees haven't exoloded yet. It's the rest of his body that's failing - perhaps as a result of trying to compensate for reduced powers caused by long-term injuries. Even when he has been fit it's clear that he's not the player he was - his pace is nothing like it used to be.

 

It'd be amazing if he got consistently fit, sharp, and started banging them on the the regular, but I just don't see it happening, sadly. For £20m we haven't got, it's not looking like the shrewdest business at this stage.

 

Sent from my F3311 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A decent preseason would help get an unfit player fit but there's a difference between being unfit and injury prone; Ings is the latter. All preseason is to him is another chance to get injured.

 

I look forward to being told he has picked up a knock in a friendly against Real Sociedad and will miss the opening game of the season, only for that to mysteriously drag out until late September with little explanation given.

 

Cynical, me?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really is a shame that there is no get out clause in our deal with Liverpool and we look set to waste more money on signing him. He's missing Cardiff and probably Fulham - two massive, must win games.

 

& hamstring's tend to be tricky. It's possible he could be out longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to the club, who could've predicted Ings would get injured?

 

I was pretty confident he'd get injured at least one more time the second half of the season. I'll even predict now that he'll come back fit and play again, but finish the season injured.

As good as he is when he plays I wouldn't go through with the deal if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just BS from one poster on here.

 

To be fair to Shance he's sort of right, there's a clause that says we are beholden to sign Ings if he's available for a certain number of games (note he doesn't have to start just be available), if it's under a threshold the purchase doesn't kick in.

 

Also i've heard, but it's more of a rumour than the last one, that Ings himself has a "get out clause" if we get relegated.

 

I thought this was all pretty well known to be honest, and i'm amazed people think it's bullsh*t as the club would be doing incredibly bad business if they'd committed to signing a player with long term injury problems.

 

Oh and before people ask i have no idea what the threshold is, the person that told me didn't know the details of that, simply that there was one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Shance he's sort of right, there's a clause that says we are beholden to sign Ings if he's available for a certain number of games (note he doesn't have to start just be available), if it's under a threshold the purchase doesn't kick in.

 

Also i've heard, but it's more of a rumour than the last one, that Ings himself has a "get out clause" if we get relegated.

 

I thought this was all pretty well known to be honest, and i'm amazed people think it's bullsh*t as the club would be doing incredibly bad business if they'd committed to signing a player with long term injury problems.

 

Oh and before people ask i have no idea what the threshold is, the person that told me didn't know the details of that, simply that there was one.

Don't believe a word of it. You haven't seen the contract, nor have I. Shane's comments are bull**** in my opinion, there is no credible source for this and it.doesn't make any sense. The sooner people accept that Ings is our player the better. I understand some people don't like it but it's done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't believe a word of it. You haven't seen the contract, nor have I. Shane's comments are bull**** in my opinion, there is no credible source for this and it.doesn't make any sense. The sooner people accept that Ings is our player the better. I understand some people don't like it but it's done.

 

Fair enough if that’s what you choose to believe mate, but I’ll go with what a first team player said instead

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough if that’s what you choose to believe mate, but I’ll go with what a first team player said instead

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Suppose it was Charlie ?. Believe what you want mate, though what you say makes some, sense, not the same as what Shane alleged. Having a clause that says we only purchase if he is available for more than, say, 0 games wouldn't surprise me. Would cover situations such as what sadly happened recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Shance he's sort of right, there's a clause that says we are beholden to sign Ings if he's available for a certain number of games (note he doesn't have to start just be available), if it's under a threshold the purchase doesn't kick in.

 

Also i've heard, but it's more of a rumour than the last one, that Ings himself has a "get out clause" if we get relegated.

 

I thought this was all pretty well known to be honest, and i'm amazed people think it's bullsh*t as the club would be doing incredibly bad business if they'd committed to signing a player with long term injury problems.

 

Oh and before people ask i have no idea what the threshold is, the person that told me didn't know the details of that, simply that there was one.

 

Assuming you are correct, how would Liverpool prove whether Ings was available for any particular game but wasnt in the squad? Saints could easily say he wasn’t t up to the fitness level required. It’s torally inlrovable as it’s subjective. Surely a could only stipulate appearances. Couldnt imagine it going to court and Liverpool trying to argue that Ings was fit / available

 

For that reason alone I don’t think your information is likely to be correct. Appearance based alone be realistic imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...