Unai Emery

[pauliewalnuts]

Maybe we were tempted by the extra money Ings attracted in Jan window which we mightnt get for him in the summer allied with fact that Emery did not want him and Ings wanted to go. How much diffrence would be have made between now and the end of season

Based on the fact he was our top scorer, he'd have made some difference.

The point here, though, is not just about selling Ings per se, it is selling Ings AND sending Archer out on loan.

[eamonn]

Ings was £12m, increasing to £15m when West Ham stay up at the end of the season. Duran for a little more in total outlay with his whole career ahead of him, I can see why the club were tempted by this.

I just wish we hadn't made a decision on Archer until the end of the month (i.e let go on-loan if Ings stays, keep him if Ings goes) as for me, he should be pushing Watkins for a starting place. His technique and all-round ability is better than the Ch'ship swamp he's currently playing in.

[chrisw1]

Ings was £12m, increasing to £15m when West Ham stay up at the end of the season. Duran for a little more in total outlay with his whole career ahead of him, I can see why the club were tempted by this.

I just wish we hadn't made a decision on Archer until the end of the month (i.e let go on-loan if Ings stays, keep him if Ings goes) as for me, he should be pushing Watkins for a starting place. His technique and all-round ability is better than the Ch'ship swamp he's currently playing in.

But surely we're not at the point where it has to be 'one in one out'

[brontebilly]

Or just kept Ings and sold him in the summer. Without the 4 points that Ings won in games under Emery, we'd be 15th, behind Leicester, Wolves and Forest.

Let's be honest, you hardly had a good word to say about him when he was here. You accused him of running round like an old man a few times.

I've already said he had limitations, and running around like an old man was one of them, it's hardly a relevation or a view that wasn't widely shared on here. But he was a striker, an experienced player to bring on, he scored goals, and he was our top scorer. I don't think he had a long term future with us, but selling him in January was stupid and has left us with a depleted squad. That's hardly controversial.

We haven't missed Ings as of yet anyway..Watkins form has improved since which is no coincidence. Duran looks a decent sub and definitely a better option for the future perhaps even the present. Ings struggling for game at WHU too.

[eamonn]

Ings was £12m, increasing to £15m when West Ham stay up at the end of the season. Duran for a little more in total outlay with his whole career ahead of him, I can see why the club were tempted by this.

I just wish we hadn't made a decision on Archer until the end of the month (i.e let go on-loan if Ings stays, keep him if Ings goes) as for me, he should be pushing Watkins for a starting place. His technique and all-round ability is better than the Ch'ship swamp he's currently playing in.

But surely we're not at the point where it has to be 'one in one out'

Maybe not but ultimately for the rest of the season, Duran will likely play minutes that Ings otherwise would have.

[Dave]

Ings was £12m, increasing to £15m when West Ham stay up at the end of the season. Duran for a little more in total outlay with his whole career ahead of him, I can see why the club were tempted by this.

Ings would have still brought in a transfer fee in July. It's not "£12m now or nothing in the summer".

How about "buy Duran, have a better squad for the rest of this season, sell Ings for £8m in six months time"?

[PeterWithesShin]

The general consensus was Ings and Watkins were a bit shit as a partnership, as far as I can remember Ings scored once after coming off the bench in about 20 sub appearances so he wasn't a game changer, and we have the best part of £20m when you add his wages.

I can see why some people wish we still had him but i'd rather have Duran coming off the bench than Ings, or even Bert or Bailey coming on. And Archer is gaining valuable experience that he wasn't getting by coming on for 10 mins here and there for a total of playing about an hour for us in the first half of the season.

[Ian.]

Or just kept Ings and sold him in the summer. Without the 4 points that Ings won in games under Emery, we'd be 15th, behind Leicester, Wolves and Forest.

Let's be honest, you hardly had a good word to say about him when he was here. You accused him of running round like an old man a few times.

I've already said he had limitations, and running around like an old man was one of them, it's hardly a relevation or a view that wasn't widely shared on here. But he was a striker, an experienced player to bring on, he scored goals, and he was our top scorer. I don't think he had a long term future with us, but selling him in January was stupid and has left us with a depleted squad. That's hardly controversial.

We haven't missed Ings as of yet anyway..Watkins form has improved since which is no coincidence. Duran looks a decent sub and definitely a better option for the future perhaps even the present. Ings struggling for game at WHU too.

Actually if Watkins form keeps on improving like it has been, moving Ings out could be a masterstroke and not a negative as it seems to be thought of.

[Risso]

The general consensus was Ings and Watkins were a bit shit as a partnership, as far as I can remember Ings scored once after coming off the bench in about 20 sub appearances so he wasn't a game changer, and we have the best part of £20m when you add his wages.

I can see why some people wish we still had him but i'd rather have Duran coming off the bench than Ings, or even Bert or Bailey coming on. And Archer is gaining valuable experience that he wasn't getting by coming on for 10 mins here and there for a total of playing about an hour for us in the first half of the season.

Nobody has suggested playing Ings and Watkins together though. The point is that whether it was starting games, or coming on as sub, Ings had scored six goals from not that many minutes.

[Drummond]

If Archer keeps going, keeps banging them in then he gives the manager a decision in the summer. No point in keeping him if he never plays.

As for Ings, now we haven't got him he seems to be the player to save our season, which is a bit odd.

We had a bloated squad of players that aren't good enough to get us where we want to go. That's not controversial. I really wouldn't be at all surprised to see us spending close to £200m this summer. (That probably is! haha) That would make a huge difference to our aspirations for the future.

The squad needs better players in most positions, and the first team has to be the place where we're signing players for.

[Risso]

If Archer keeps going, keeps banging them in then he gives the manager a decision in the summer. No point in keeping him if he never plays.

As for Ings, now we haven't got him he seems to be the player to save our season, which is a bit odd.

We had a bloated squad of players that aren't good enough to get us where we want to go. That's not controversial. I really wouldn't be at all surprised to see us spending close to £200m this summer. (That probably is! haha) That would make a huge difference to our aspirations for the future.

The squad needs better players in most positions, and the first team has to be the place where we're signing players for.

There's having a bloated squad, and then there's having two U21 keepers and another untried youth player on the bench. There's probably a middle ground to be had somewhere between that.

[PeterWithesShin]

The general consensus was Ings and Watkins were a bit shit as a partnership, as far as I can remember Ings scored once after coming off the bench in about 20 sub appearances so he wasn't a game changer, and we have the best part of £20m when you add his wages.

I can see why some people wish we still had him but i'd rather have Duran coming off the bench than Ings, or even Bert or Bailey coming on. And Archer is gaining valuable experience that he wasn't getting by coming on for 10 mins here and there for a total of playing about an hour for us in the first half of the season.

Nobody has suggested playing Ings and Watkins together though. The point is that whether it was starting games, or coming on as sub, Ings had scored six goals from not that many minutes.

Watkins is better to start though and Ings scored once off the bench.

[eamonn]

Ings was £12m, increasing to £15m when West Ham stay up at the end of the season. Duran for a little more in total outlay with his whole career ahead of him, I can see why the club were tempted by this.

Ings would have still brought in a transfer fee in July. It's not "£12m now or nothing in the summer".

How about "buy Duran, have a better squad for the rest of this season, sell Ings for £8m in six months time"?

I think Emery was unconvinced by Ing's ability to press so the die may have already been cast i.e if a club comes in with a generous offer, he can go.

Like I said, the timing of it coming after Archer being sent-out to an inferior division was my bigger gripe. But I agree, I would have preferred us to keep hold of Ings til the summer with Archer gone and no one more proven than Duran available as back-up.

[Risso]

The general consensus was Ings and Watkins were a bit shit as a partnership, as far as I can remember Ings scored once after coming off the bench in about 20 sub appearances so he wasn't a game changer, and we have the best part of £20m when you add his wages.

I can see why some people wish we still had him but i'd rather have Duran coming off the bench than Ings, or even Bert or Bailey coming on. And Archer is gaining valuable experience that he wasn't getting by coming on for 10 mins here and there for a total of playing about an hour for us in the first half of the season.

Nobody has suggested playing Ings and Watkins together though. The point is that whether it was starting games, or coming on as sub, Ings had scored six goals from not that many minutes.

Watkins is better to start though and Ings scored once off the bench.

Which means he scored 5 starting, in less than half the starts of Watkins. And you're ignoring the point of what happens if Watkins is injured, suspended or just out of form.

[Drummond]

If Archer keeps going, keeps banging them in then he gives the manager a decision in the summer. No point in keeping him if he never plays.

As for Ings, now we haven't got him he seems to be the player to save our season, which is a bit odd.

We had a bloated squad of players that aren't good enough to get us where we want to go. That's not controversial. I really wouldn't be at all surprised to see us spending close to £200m this summer. (That probably is! haha) That would make a huge difference to our aspirations for the future.

The squad needs better players in most positions, and the first team has to be the place where we're signing players for.

There's having a bloated squad, and then there's having two U21 keepers and another untried youth player on the bench. There's probably a middle ground to be had somewhere between that.

Yep, which is why Guilbert, Sanson, Nakamba, Augustinsson and Bednarek were all allowed to go. There's your bench a bit cooler. But be honest, none of them are players you'd want playing for us are they? Ings is the most controversial, followed by Archer as the others to go, but one gets vital experience and a chance to show whether he's up to it and I don't need to say any more on Ings.

Of course he'd have liked better come in, but it wasn't to be.