Danny Ings

[Sunglasses Ron]

I'm hoping this is all bluster on behalf of Ings and his agent with a view to securing the maximum possible deal on a new contract at Saints. Combined with his local roots (which must count for something) I would like to think that there is enough going on here to make him happy to stay if the deal is right.

[Barsiem]

 

[InvictaSaint]

9 hours ago, Mr X said:

How did this get leaked or is it a media "truth" 

https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/19/danny-ings-wants-southampton-exit-and-has-specific-clubs-in-mind-13932174/

That’s such sloppy journalism - if one can call it journalism. Headline is so misleading and no concrete evidence anywhere in the article for any of the supposition. 

[Noodles34]

24 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

Some players do care about loyalty. 

and who might they be?

[Noodles34]

3 minutes ago, Barsiem said:

 

This is what Alex Crook said yesterday, it is the release clause that is the issue. Saints want around £40m and the Ings party want around £20m, that is the issue, everything else is fine. 

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, Noodles34 said:

This is what Alex Crook said yesterday, it is the release clause that is the issue. Saints want around £40m and the Ings party want around £20m, that is the issue, everything else is fine. 

What about the offer of being co-captain and a striker leadership role? 

[DT]

Indykailanews on Twitter :

Wow! Spurs to make Danny Ings bid. #THFC

[austsaint]

13 hours ago, Turkish said:

He isn’t and yet again you prove you don’t know what you’re on about when forced to look beyond spreadsheets 

And you prove, yet again, to be a shite stirring contrarian with not much of value  to say.   I'll back MLG's ideas over your opinionated carp every day of the week.  And he's right to say you can't compare players from different eras with any certainty.  Besides, Flowers was a Goalkeeper, and a good one;  Bridge was a LB and a very good one.  Ings is a striker, and when fit is a very good one.    In the sense of their value to Saints in their different eras, without Ings we would probably be in the Championship at the moment.   On that level alone Ings has to be rated near the top.

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 hours ago, warsash saint said:

Come on Ducky, we are waiting for your answer!!

Mick Channon

Martin Chivers 

Kevin Keegan

Alan Shearer 

Rod Wallace 

Danny Wallace 

Sadio Mane 

 

[Turkish]

19 minutes ago, austsaint said:

And you prove, yet again, to be a shite stirring contrarian with not much of value  to say.   I'll back MLG's ideas over your opinionated carp every day of the week.  And he's right to say you can't compare players from different eras with any certainty.  Besides, Flowers was a Goalkeeper, and a good one;  Bridge was a LB and a very good one.  Ings is a striker, and when fit is a very good one.    In the sense of their value to Saints in their different eras, without Ings we would probably be in the Championship at the moment.   On that level alone Ings has to be rated near the top.

Sorry i've upset you, you do seem a delicate little flower.  In this case comparing players is quite simple.

When Flowers left us he was one of the top 3 England goalkeepers, competing with David Seaman, arguably the best goalkeeper England have has since Shilton. When he went to Blackburnhe became the most expensive goalkeeper in Britain at the time. Blackburn were spending big buying the best players to build a team that would go onto win the title the following season.

Bridge was rated as one of the best left backs in the country, much of our game was based around his runs down the flanks, with Marsden tucking in to allow the overlap, When he left we had to restructure that side as Marsden also was no longer as effective. Bridge had already made over 10 England appearances when he left despite competing for the position with Ashley Cole, who was one of the best left backs we've had and part of Arsenals team which one of the best sides this country has ever seen. The £7m fee was big money at the time for a left back, again going to a team that were spending huge money and buying up the best they could.

But yeah, lets pretend Ings is a level above them both because he had one good season with us and it's suits the narrative because we dont like the person who points to a few facts to prove it's not the case. We all know people dont like facts when it doesn't suit their stance dont we. I guess that makes me a shit stirring contrarian without anything of any value to say. You carrying on floundering around not really knowing what you're talking about though.

Edited 21 January, 2021 by Turkish

[saintwbu]

If they want a sub £30million release clause in the contract, then we may as well just save ourselves the wages and signing on fee and take the contract off the table. With a definitive price of £30mil or less i’d be astounded if there weren’t 7 or 8 clubs in this league (CL or no CL) willing to pay that without question and double his wages. Absolute steal for a 28 year old England international who people know will score goals at this level. 

[austsaint]

26 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Sorry i've upset you, you do seem a delicate little flower.  In this case comparing players is quite simple.

When Flowers left us he was one of the top 3 England goalkeepers, competing with David Seaman, arguably the best goalkeeper England have has since Shilton. When he went to Blackburnhe became the most expensive goalkeeper in Britain at the time. Blackburn were spending big buying the best players to build a team that would go onto win the title the following season.

Bridge was rated as one of the best left backs in the country, much of our game was based around his runs down the flanks, with Marsden tucking in to allow the overlap, When he left we had to restructure that side as Marsden also was no longer as effective. Bridge had already made over 10 England appearances when he left despite competing for the position with Ashley Cole, who was one of the best left backs we've had and part of Arsenals team which one of the best sides this country has ever seen. The £7m fee was big money at the time for a left back, again going to a team that were spending huge money and buying up the best they could.

But yeah, lets pretend Ings is a level above them both because he had one good season with us and it's suits the narrative because we dont like the person who points to a few facts to prove it's not the case. We all know people dont like facts when it doesn't suit their stance dont we. I guess that makes me a shit stirring contrarian without anything of any value to say. You carrying on floundering around not really knowing what you're talking about though.

You mistake facts for what is subjective opinion - but don't let that sully your opinionated crusade.

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, austsaint said:

You mistake facts for what is subjective opinion - but don't let that sully your opinionated crusade.

Everything i have stated about Flowers and Bridge are facts. If you cant use them to work out that they are at least the same level as Ings is, not Ings a level above as was claimed then i cant help you any further, sorry you dont like that.

Edited 21 January, 2021 by Turkish

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, Noodles34 said:

and who might they be?

Usually the ones scrabbling for their final best contract- ie loyalty that benefits them.

[trousers]

1 hour ago, Noodles34 said:

Saints want around £40m and the Ings party want around £20m, that is the issue

I know I keep banging on about this but why are Ings's camp so worried about a release figure in the region of £40m? If Ings is good enough to play Champions League football (which he is), then in today's crazy prices* for players at the highest level, £40m is still a bargain for a prolific PL goalscorer. Maybe Ings's camp should show a bit more faith in the quality of their man rather than valuing him at a derisory £20m (if that is indeed the figure they are aiming for).

*Caveat: yes, I'm aware that the covid situation could be having a temporary deflationary effect on prices at the moment

[trousers]

1 hour ago, DT said:

Indykailanews on Twitter :

Wow! Spurs to make Danny Ings bid. #THFC

My grandmother's cat (and Alex Crook) are more ITK than that twitter account

[Noodles34]

someone else said that it may be that the 'clause' is just a smokescreen to Ings wanting to leave but not giving that impression i.e. he leaves (with a heavy heart) and says he was happy with everything except the release clause and Saints would not budge on that. He leaves but saves face and blames the club.. 

Edited 21 January, 2021 by Noodles34

[qwertyell]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

I know I keep banging on about this but why are Ings's camp so worried about a release figure in the region of £40m? If Ings is good enough to play Champions League football (which he is), then in today's crazy prices* for players at the highest level, £40m is still a bargain for a prolific PL goalscorer. Maybe Ings's camp should show a bit more faith in the quality of their man rather than valuing him at a derisory £20m (if that is indeed the figure they are aiming for).

*Caveat: yes, I'm aware that the covid situation could be having a temporary deflationary effect on prices at the moment

Because the club they've been touting him to (probably Spurs) have told them how much they'd be willing to pay to make it happen.

[Noodles34]

The only thing that doesn't make sense is that by signing a new three year deal, that effectively upps his market value anyway. I do not understand why he would think that we would offer a new contract and accept a 20 mil release clause. He's worth that now anyway, arguably more but certainly by next summer, if he has not signed, he will be with a year left. However he risks a lot by not signing (unless he moves this window), it is not incomprehensible to suggest that he might not return to the prolific goal scoring form or may he get injured again. If he does sign for us, not sure a release clause is that necessary, he's playing for a club that sell, sell, sell. We just want to sign him to protect his value so we can do a Fonte and get good money just as he goes on a downward curve, which is fine from a financial view. Not sure the manager comes into it as he'll be gone next year if we finish in the top 6 or maybe 7 this year. 

[Noodles34]

23 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Everything i have stated about Flowers and Bridge are facts. If you cant use them to work out that they are at least the same level as Ings is, not Ings a level above as was claimed then i cant help you any further, sorry you dont like that.

what are we saying here, that Ings is more important to the team than Flowers and Bridger were (haven't scrolled back to look)? 

[Turkish]

Just now, Noodles34 said:

what are we saying here, that Ings is more important to the team than Flowers and Bridger were (haven't scrolled back to look)? 

No, MLG is claiming Ings is a level above them. 

[Noodles34]

Just now, Turkish said:

No, MLG is claiming Ings is a level above them. 

Think at the time, as you said, Timmy was fucking brilliant and we were gutted to lose him, same for Bridge, but maybe losing a LB isn't the same as losing a striker or goalie. Ironically, most people felt losing Shearer wasn't a massive deal at the time considering  the money we got for him. 

[SKD]

12 minutes ago, trousers said:

I know I keep banging on about this but why are Ings's camp so worried about a release figure in the region of £40m? If Ings is good enough to play Champions League football (which he is), then in today's crazy prices* for players at the highest level, £40m is still a bargain for a prolific PL goalscorer. Maybe Ings's camp should show a bit more faith in the quality of their man rather than valuing him at a derisory £20m (if that is indeed the figure they are aiming for).

*Caveat: yes, I'm aware that the covid situation could be having a temporary deflationary effect on prices at the moment

What’s more likely to get a sale, him at £20m or him at £40m? Especially considering his age / injury record. 

At 20m I think every big club would take a punt. At 40m, you’re limiting your market. 

The job of the agent is to get the best possible deal for the player. 

At £40m, there is potentially better value out there. 

 

 

[Smirking_Saint]

It all feels very very much weighted in Ings favour, and Im not sure I’m overly comfortable with that

A 20m or even 30m release fee is absolute peanuts if Ings goes on to have another barnstorming end to the season, which almost negates tying him down in the first place... I would imagine even the likes of Leeds/ West Ham / Villa would be able to find that if they were looking to become much more clinical as an attacking outfit 

Add to that the fact we’ve offered a likely 3/4 year deal at inflated wages (as reported), the flipside is if he has a reoccurrence of his injuries (not unlikely unfortunately) then we are saddled with an unuseable asset with a large financial anchor around his neck

There is no denying Ings is an exceptional player for us.. but he has realistically had 1 1/2 good seasons so far as well as a period of injury on a few occasions... so Im not sure it makes solid financial sense to abide by these terms

[trousers]

21 minutes ago, SKD said:

At £40m, there is potentially better value out there. 

* MLG Mode *

Name a player in the 20+ PL goals per season bracket who would be valued at less than £40m...

[SW5 SAINT]

I would have thought it’s a tad risky on Ing’s part to run down his contract with his injury record. Ok to do when you are about 22, with no dodgy body parts, but entering your 30’s with only months on your contract! Perhaps Southampton should call his and his agents bluff - maybe that’s exactly what they are doing, after all the contract still has 18 months to run......

[Appy]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

* MLG Mode *

Name a player in the 20+ PL goals per season bracket who would be valued at less than £40m...

*MLG Mode *

Doing it once doesn't make you a 20+ goals per season striker.

 

Look at Beattie.

[Saint_clark]

10 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

It all feels very very much weighted in Ings favour, and Im not sure I’m overly comfortable with that

A 20m or even 30m release fee is absolute peanuts if Ings goes on to have another barnstorming end to the season, which almost negates tying him down in the first place... I would imagine even the likes of Leeds/ West Ham / Villa would be able to find that if they were looking to become much more clinical as an attacking outfit 

Add to that the fact we’ve offered a likely 3/4 year deal at inflated wages (as reported), the flipside is if he has a reoccurrence of his injuries (not unlikely unfortunately) then we are saddled with an unuseable asset with a large financial anchor around his neck

There is no denying Ings is an exceptional player for us.. but he has realistically had 1 1/2 good seasons so far as well as a period of injury on a few occasions... so Im not sure it makes solid financial sense to abide by these terms

Yep, if they're set on that release clause we should take the contract offer off the table and then refuse to accept anything in the summer that isn't at least £5million above the amount they wanted to set.

[Saint_clark]

1 hour ago, saintwbu said:

If they want a sub £30million release clause in the contract, then we may as well just save ourselves the wages and signing on fee and take the contract off the table. With a definitive price of £30mil or less i’d be astounded if there weren’t 7 or 8 clubs in this league (CL or no CL) willing to pay that without question and double his wages. Absolute steal for a 28 year old England international who people know will score goals at this level. 

With the release clause they want to set it almost guarantees he goes in the summer, barring a major injury. It's ridiculous and such an obvious "we want a load of extra money and still get the move". 

[Turkish]

26 minutes ago, Noodles34 said:

Think at the time, as you said, Timmy was fucking brilliant and we were gutted to lose him, same for Bridge, but maybe losing a LB isn't the same as losing a striker or goalie. Ironically, most people felt losing Shearer wasn't a massive deal at the time considering  the money we got for him. 

All of them were very good players, and agree losing a top keeper or striker would have more impact than a left back but to claim Ings is a level above them both is ridiculous. 

Where do people put James Beattie into the mix for our best strikers? You look at his record and his best season in terms of goals is better than Ings was, he was also better for a longer period and integral to how we played at the time. I though he was a cock but you cant argue that he was a good striker for us.

[Turkish]

20 minutes ago, Appy said:

*MLG Mode *

Doing it once doesn't make you a 20+ goals per season striker.

 

Look at Beattie.

Correct, there is a difference between a 20 goal a season striker and a striker who has scored 20 goals in a season.

Austin scored 18 for QBR and he cost us £4m FFS.

[Convict Colony]

 Career stats from Transfermarkt.

Stats for us indicate a easy 20M+ striker - goal every other game - so can see why club is saying 40m (allegedly)

Unfortunately his contract length is the counter balance - so i say 30mil and we move one either in the summer

Or we put it in his release clause that its 20mil once he has done 1 full season on the next contract but if he score under 20 goals each season it goes up 10mil per year ;-)

Bench him at 19 goals obvs

[Charlie Wayman]

Perhaps the Club are trying to off load him as he is one of the few saleable assets they have? Is it sell assets or go bust?

[danjosaint]

If we said we've offered him £110k (plucked out of air figure but could be in ball park) so that's about £8.5m he'll be paid over the nxt 18mths, then he wants release clause of 20m, doesn't work for me, either remove offer and say you can go now for £40m or say we'll pay you £110k pw but we want minimum £30m release clause, also we could be pro active which we won't and go and get Daka from Saltzburg,  shame we didn't go for Darwin Nunez, few rehashed websites mentioned us but prob all crap before he went to Benfica 

[Appy]

34 minutes ago, Charlie Wayman said:

Perhaps the Club are trying to off load him as he is one of the few saleable assets they have? Is it sell assets or go bust?

I would expect it’s worth more to us for him to sign a new contract, far less chance of relegation. 

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Mick Channon

Martin Chivers 

Kevin Keegan

Alan Shearer 

Rod Wallace 

Danny Wallace 

Sadio Mane 

 

I would include Ron Davies

Edited 21 January, 2021 by badgerx16

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

All of them were very good players, and agree losing a top keeper or striker would have more impact than a left back but to claim Ings is a level above them both is ridiculous. 

Where do people put James Beattie into the mix for our best strikers? You look at his record and his best season in terms of goals is better than Ings was, he was also better for a longer period and integral to how we played at the time. I though he was a cock but you cant argue that he was a good striker for us.

Given choice, I’d just about have Beattie over Ings, mainly because he largely stayed fit. Beatt’s last three seasons (not including the Wigley mess) saw 12, 23 and 14 league goals. Ings so far has 7, 22 and 7 (let’s assume 14 for the full season if he stays).

 

 

[StrangelyBrown]

1 hour ago, Charlie Wayman said:

Perhaps the Club are trying to off load him as he is one of the few saleable assets they have? Is it sell assets or go bust?

Perhaps the Club are trying to find a way to cash in on a saleable asset while he is still saleable for a decent price so they can replace and repeat. I couldnt blame them if they did to be honest, there is no room for sentimentality in football anymore - money, greedy agents and players destroyed that a long time ago. 

[CB Fry]

20 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Given choice, I’d just about have Beattie over Ings, mainly because he largely stayed fit. Beatt’s last three seasons (not including the Wigley mess) saw 12, 23 and 14 league goals. Ings so far has 7, 22 and 7 (let’s assume 14 for the full season if he stays).

 

 

My instinct when this debate started was that I look at Ings now as someone broadly in the same bracket as Beattie.

Ings position in the world is also similar - pretty fringe with England with no real chance of being a core international player. A decent, consistent goal scorer.

I'm a bit bewildered by one of our resident "experts" making out Ings is some world-beating megastar on a very short list of great players. 

Nah. We've had plenty come and go. Ings is great, has made a big contribution but then so have others.

[Bobbyboy]

3 hours ago, Noodles34 said:

Think at the time, as you said, Timmy was fucking brilliant and we were gutted to lose him, same for Bridge, but maybe losing a LB isn't the same as losing a striker or goalie. Ironically, most people felt losing Shearer wasn't a massive deal at the time considering  the money we got for him. 

For me, when Bridge went we also effectively lost, or seriously downgraded, both Marsden and Beattie. Marsden was never the same without Bridge doing the overlaps and a lot of Beattie's effectiveness came from Bridge's crosses. Ings bangs the goals in so has to be regarded as more important, but Bridge was about more than just Bridge at the time. Or my memory is poor. Very possible.

[Chickendippers]

The only truly world class player that was playing at that level when we sold him and then continued to play at that level was VVD and possibly Toby (Premier League if only to keep it to colour TV ). I'd put Theo, Shearer, Bridge and even Shaw ahead of Bale (good though he was for us at the time) as top prospects capable of kicking on at the time we sold them. Beattie was superb for us for a couple of seasons but I think he had already peaked when we sold him, so I would put him in the Lambert category when he left. Mane was good for a few games but I don't think anyone here thought he was a world beater (other than Koeman to be fair - especially after Sheff Utd away).

I think Ings is in the very very good category right now and would make most of the big 6 better (except perhaps Liverpool and Spurs). We are lucky to have him and his agent knows it.

[Totton Saint]

I am sick of players being rescued from obscurity or having their careers revitalised by us only to use us a a stepping stone. Tear up his contract offer and let him sweat

[trousers]

3 hours ago, Appy said:

*MLG Mode *

Doing it once doesn't make you a 20+ goals per season striker.

* MLG Mode *

But, surely a Champions League club wouldn't be interested in Ings if they didn't think he could maintain such form over the next few seasons?

 

 

 

Edited 21 January, 2021 by trousers

[Lord Duckhunter]

13 minutes ago, Totton Saint said:

I am sick of players being rescued from obscurity or having their careers revitalised by us only to use us a a stepping stone. 

Who else have we rescued from “obscurity” who has then used us as a stepping stone ? Most players we get from bigger clubs have either been on their way down, or like OR have settled at our level. I can’t think of one other player that has stepped down to us, then gone back up. 

Edited 21 January, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[Chez]

4 hours ago, saintwbu said:

If they want a sub £30million release clause in the contract, then we may as well just save ourselves the wages and signing on fee and take the contract off the table. With a definitive price of £30mil or less i’d be astounded if there weren’t 7 or 8 clubs in this league (CL or no CL) willing to pay that without question and double his wages. Absolute steal for a 28 year old England international who people know will score goals at this level. 

I was thinking the same. £20m is far too low. At this very minute would we accept £20m for him? I think no, and thus a £20m clause could create a possibility of a bid today that we could not turn down. Come the end of the season, would we accept a £20m (again assuming no contract has been signed) or risk an unhappy player that leaves for free 12 months later. Not sure, but at least its in our own destiny. As you say, may as well remove the contract offer - all it does is give him big money security and prevent him going for £0 in 18 months. Tricky though. As a company, allowing a valuable asset to depreciate to £0 would be bad business.

[Saint_clark]

24 minutes ago, Chickendippers said:

The only truly world class player that was playing at that level when we sold him and then continued to play at that level was VVD and possibly Toby (Premier League if only to keep it to colour TV ). I'd put Theo, Shearer, Bridge and even Shaw ahead of Bale (good though he was for us at the time) as top prospects capable of kicking on at the time we sold them. Beattie was superb for us for a couple of seasons but I think he had already peaked when we sold him, so I would put him in the Lambert category when he left. Mane was good for a few games but I don't think anyone here thought he was a world beater (other than Koeman to be fair - especially after Sheff Utd away).

I think Ings is in the very very good category right now and would make most of the big 6 better (except perhaps Liverpool and Spurs). We are lucky to have him and his agent knows it.

Erm almost everyone on here said Liverpool got a bargain when they signed Mane for £30million. First season he was inconsistent for us but after that he was one of the top attackers in the league.

[Chez]

3 hours ago, trousers said:

I know I keep banging on about this but why are Ings's camp so worried about a release figure in the region of £40m? If Ings is good enough to play Champions League football (which he is), then in today's crazy prices* for players at the highest level, £40m is still a bargain for a prolific PL goalscorer. Maybe Ings's camp should show a bit more faith in the quality of their man rather than valuing him at a derisory £20m (if that is indeed the figure they are aiming for).

*Caveat: yes, I'm aware that the covid situation could be having a temporary deflationary effect on prices at the moment

To provide context, Haller (26) was just sold (right in the middle of the COVID financial situation) for £20m and he was a non scoring, dare I say it, complete and utter failure.

[Saint_clark]

1 minute ago, Chez said:

To provide context, Haller (26) was just sold (right in the middle of the COVID financial situation) for £20m and he was a non scoring, dare I say it, complete and utter failure.

Brilliant point. Ings agent team are expecting us to accept the same or less 🤦‍♂️ 

We'd honestly be better keeping him and letting him go for nothing, his goals for another season would be worth the loss (top half rather than bottom half, would we make most of it up in prize money anyway?) And it gives us another seasons worth of revenue/deadweight players off the wage bill to try and replace him properly rather than spending a paltry amount on a subpar replacement and struggling because of it.

[redkeith]

5 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Mick Channon

Martin Chivers 

Kevin Keegan

Alan Shearer 

Rod Wallace 

Danny Wallace 

Sadio Mane 

 

You could add Ted Drake and Charlie Wayman to that list . 

 

[trousers]

4 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

We'd honestly be better keeping him and letting him go for nothing, his goals for another season would be worth the loss 

Whilst I tend to agree, the worry would be that a grumpy/disenchanted player ("wah, wah, they wouldn't let me go") would go off the boil in their final season. I guess the counter-argument there though is that he would be shooting himself in the foot if he took his foot off the pedal and made himself less attractive to the big teams in the process.