Welcome Danny Ings

Originally Posted by utd99

Of course it would. He would undoubtedly come in as a squad player and if he can force his way unto the first team based on performance good for him and good for us.

Part of your justification for signing him seemed to be that our backs up are Bailly and the like. With the forwards, I don’t think it’s quite the same. They’re a blend and range of forwards, rather than immediate starters and immediate back up. I’d want a striker that immediately elevates us (Kane) or nothing.

My gripe is whether he'll manage to scrub the scouse off him.

Originally Posted by d_knight

My gripe is whether he'll manage to scrub the scouse off him.

owen

Originally Posted by Dr Stranger

Part of your justification for signing him seemed to be that our backs up are Bailly and the like. With the forwards, I don’t think it’s quite the same. They’re a blend and range of forwards, rather than immediate starters and immediate back up. I’d want a striker that immediately elevates us (Kane) or nothing.

Having a stronger squad does immediately elevate us. We can’t keep going on flogging 15 players to death and hoping they’re ready for the meaningful end of the season. Cavani was brought in for cover; has he improved us?

Im really not sure which bit of ‘improved squad’ you’re not getting mate. It sounds like you’re arguing for practice.

Originally Posted by utd99

Having a stronger squad does immediately elevate us. We can’t keep going on flogging 15 players to death and hoping they’re ready for the meaningful end of the season. Cavani was brought in for cover; has he improved us?

Im really not sure which bit of ‘improved squad’ you’re not getting mate. It sounds like you’re arguing for practice.

Cavani brought us something we didn’t have. He was an instant upgrade on Ighalo. Would Ings? Or would he be a watered down Cavani? If Cavani was leaving, it would make more sense. People’s main gripe with his signing was more that it was instead of Sancho. We’d have the same issue if it happened again this summer.

I understand squad depth. We’re all good there .... my point is that we do have options up there. I think if we’re to add one, then the priority should be a Sancho type. Someone who can play across the front and is comfortable on the right. I don’t think it should be an out and out forward unless that forward is a Kane, Harland worldie, not Danny Ings. I question whether he’s good enough and if he’s needed. At least not a priority. If he’s the icing on the cake of 4 or 5 signings, then ok, but I think we all know that ain’t happening and he’ll likely be a ‘big’ signing of one or two if we do get him.

I think we have other, bigger concerns.

He'd be a good player to start in the League cup, or throw on as an extra striker for the last 10 - 15 minutes if we are chasing a goal. But otherwise I can't see what else he would really bring to the team that we don't already have.

Luckily the rumour is most likely bullshit so we don't have to worry about it.

Originally Posted by ScarFace

owen

A stain on the club.

Originally Posted by ScarFace

owen

#itwas3-3

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

#itwas3-3

I guess I just don’t understand people complaining about Ole attempting to solve a clear weakness we have, especially when those same people probably haven’t watched the player in question play one full game and actually paid attention.

Sometimes I think the primary motivation to come on here is to moan. Are we going to trust Solskjaer’s decisions at any point or just keep making these superficial ‘journeyman player + shit team = bad move’ conclusions?

Originally Posted by utd99

I guess I just don’t understand people complaining about Ole attempting to solve a clear weakness we have, especially when those same people probably haven’t watched the player in question play one full game and actually paid attention.

Sometimes I think the primary motivation to come on here is to moan. Are we going to trust Solskjaer’s decisions at any point or just keep making these superficial ‘journeyman player + shit team = bad move’ conclusions?

Hang on, aren’t you often lamenting how you can seldom have a discussion on here without people resorting to either slagging someone off or reducing their argument down to an extreme?

Just because someone doesn’t want Danny Ings doesn’t mean they haven’t seen them or their argument is superficial. I don’t think my position was any more superficial than your position of ‘we need to strengthen the squad’. Ofcourse we do, but that doesn’t mean that every move is the right one , favourable or we can’t discuss it. I’m not ‘moaning’. I’m don’t have an issue with Ings or the link, It’s just a ‘no’ from me.

I don’t agree that Ings addresses a ‘clear weakness’. Squad depth is an issue, yes, but in this instance, I don’t think Ings solves anything we’re missing. We have Cavani, we have other options. I think the priorities lie elsewhere.

As for ‘trust Ole’. I do. If he wants him then, then cool. But that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss the merits of the potential signing. If he wanted to ship out Cavani and bring in Lee Trundle, would we discuss it or just say ‘trust Ole’?

Would finish top scorer. Easily

Originally Posted by Dr Stranger

Hang on, aren’t you often lamenting how you can seldom have a discussion on here without people resorting to either slagging someone off or reducing their argument down to an extreme?

Just because someone doesn’t want Danny Ings doesn’t mean they haven’t seen them or their argument is superficial. I don’t think my position was any more superficial than your position of ‘we need to strengthen the squad’. Ofcourse we do, but that doesn’t mean that every move is the right one , favourable or we can’t discuss it. I’m not ‘moaning’. I’m don’t have an issue with Ings or the link, It’s just a ‘no’ from me.

I don’t agree that Ings addresses a ‘clear weakness’. Squad depth is an issue, yes, but in this instance, I don’t think Ings solves anything we’re missing. We have Cavani, we have other options. I think the priorities lie elsewhere.

As for ‘trust Ole’. I do. If he wants him then, then cool. But that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss the merits of the potential signing. If he wanted to ship out Cavani and bring in Lee Trundle, would we discuss it or just say ‘trust Ole’?

Ok, fair enough. So then you can probably give me a specific player related reason why this specific player, and the way he plays, wouldn’t improve our squad options or depth then.

Originally Posted by utd99

Ok, fair enough. So then you can probably give me a specific player related reason why this specific player, and the way he plays, wouldn’t improve our squad options or depth then.

Literally any player would improve squad options or squad depth by being added. If we had only 1 striker, a league two player would improve the depth and options, but it doesn’t mean it’s a good move or that there aren’t more pressing issues.

You seem to be coming in on this angle that adding Ings gives another option and this is automatically an improvement, and anybody who doesn’t want him must not want the squad improving.. Not necessarily. It could be adding numbers for the sake of it. It could be at the expense of another player’s development.

Should we also sign a third left back because 3 is better than 2?

As for Ings, specifically, he seems like he would provide more of an ‘out and out striker’ alternative to Cavani. Given we have Cavani for another year, I would rather we brought in a forward who can operate from the right, like Sancho. I’d also like to see Greenwood play centrally more and Ings coming in would reduce the chances of that.

I’m not convinced he would be this easy buy either. Southampton surely wouldn’t want to sell and would fight tooth and nail to keep him.

Feels nailed on for Spurs if Kane goes IMO. Last year of his deal, can convince him he'll be first choice and leave them plenty of money to strengthen the rest of the squad.

He's got just under a 1 in 2 record for Southampton, but his injuries are an issue.

I asked you a very specific question and, again, you answered with generalities. I think this player is a very sound centre forward, makes good runs, works his nuts off, understands his role very well and is a decent threat for a low to middling team.

Would I want him as an automatic first choice, absolutely not. Would I want him at a high investment level, no. Would I want him if it meant sacrificing buying a starting 9, of course not. But I’ve been very clear on that plus the fact that our shape is much much better with a CF who knows the role; atm we only have a 34 year old whose capacity for multiple games is probably limited, a teenager who could eventually be a sensation but is not ready to lead the line yet, a lazy bastard coming off his worst season and a left sided forward who will never be a proper 9. I think it would be a huge mistake to go into another seasons with those as your only options.

Possibly you could respond with something a little more specific than ‘wah, I want Harry Kane’ this time? We all do mate - I also want Marco van Basten in his prime. If that’s not an option I’ll settle for improving a weakness.

Originally Posted by utd99

I asked you a very specific question and, again, you answered with generalities. I think this player is a very sound centre forward, makes good runs, works his nuts off, understands his role very well and is a decent threat for a low to middling team.

Would I want him as an automatic first choice, absolutely not. Would I want him at a high investment level, no. But I’ve been very clear on that plus the fact that our shape is much much better with a CF who knows the role; atm we only have a 34 year old whose capacity for multiple games is probably limited, a teenager who could eventually be a sensation but is not ready to lead the line yet, a lazy bastard coming off his worst season and a left sided forward who will never be a proper 9. I think it would be a huge mistake to go into another seasons with those as your only options.

Possibly you could respond with something a little more specific than ‘wah, I want Harry Kane’ this time? We all do mate - I also want Marco van Basten in his prime. If that’s not an option I’ll settle for improving a weakness.

You asked for specifics of the player (which I don’t see why I’m obliged to give), claim it’s general and then say ‘he works hard and makes good runs’

I have responded with more specifics than ‘waaah I want Harry Kane’. Several times. I’ve said that I don’t especially want a player who plays the same role as Cavani and isn’t adaptable along the front line. This isn’t a slight on Ings. I think he’s a good CF. I would only really want an out and out CF if they were an immediate upgrade like a Kane or Haaland type, which I think we both agree are not gettable.

I think our fundamental disagreement is less about Ings specifically and more about what we think we need: You want a back up CF, another option CF, would that be fair? I don’t, unless it’s a massive upgrade. Or at least I don’t think it’s as pressing issue as you do. I’d rather we got a right sided forward.

I’d say a new CM, a right sided forward and a CB are bigger priorities. If we get them AND Ings, then ok, but I think we all know it’s 2 or 3 signings rather than 4 or 5. If it’s 2-3 then I’d rather we focussed elsewhere. I guess a lot will depend on outgoings too, but I don’t expect many established players will be off.

Signings! We want signings!

Okay, we'll sign Ings.

Originally Posted by andyroo

Signings! We want signings!

Okay, we'll sign Ings.

“Not LITERALLY!”

Originally Posted by Dr Stranger

You asked for specifics of the player (which I don’t see why I’m obliged to give), claim it’s general and then say ‘he works hard and makes good runs’

You’re throwing good money after bad here fella. I could say why specifically, but I’m becoming less inclined the longer this nonsense goes on. People can read.