Unai Emery - our manager

[PaulWinch again]

Sorry there’s just no way to spin that at this time we’re better not having Ings. It’s just clearly not the case.

[olaftab]

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.
I have decided to accept whatever Emery does after a year of watching Gerrard unable to find his arse with both his hands. I do believe there is a plan and it may well be the summer before we see it begin to bear fruit

I am with you but taking £10M for Ings, having already loaned out Archer and then turning up with two GK's on the bench is not smart.

[Drummond]

Sorry there’s just no way to spin that at this time we’re better not having Ings. It’s just clearly not the case.

You could say that about any player that leaves though. It's all about the level of difference they make. If it's because of his proficiency in front of goal, then he hasn't done enough to be part of our future. Perhaps Emery was taking the opportunity to get rid of the first group of players he didn't want.

[Risso]

Sorry there’s just no way to spin that at this time we’re better not having Ings. It’s just clearly not the case.

You could say that about any player that leaves though. It's all about the level of difference they make. If it's because of his proficiency in front of goal, then he hasn't done enough to be part of our future. Perhaps Emery was taking the opportunity to get rid of the first group of players he didn't want.

That's just wrong though. Not having Nakamba for example isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. He wasn't good enough, and wasn't getting into squads. A whole-hearted and very decent individual who played his part in keeping us up. Thanks Marv, but time to go with our warmest regards. Ings though, whilst not being one for the future, had played his part this season, and had earned us four points in the games against Brighton and Wolves under Emery. He was certainly worth keeping round as an option, for all the reasons given already.  Just finishing 3 or 4 places higher or lower is worth about £15m these days. There really isn't a sensible argument against keeping him to be had when we're sticking untried kids on the bench.

[Bully2345]

There's also no guarantee that any money would be on the table in the summer. Ings could have stayed and broke his ankle in May and we'd be lumbered with £130k per week and that could cost a summer signing.

It's a risk to take a short term hit for longer term benefits and they're backing themselves that there's enough in the squad to do fine for six months. It'll be fine

[Risso]

There's also no guarantee that any money would be on the table in the summer. Ings could have stayed and broke his ankle in May and we'd be lumbered with £130k per week and that could cost a summer signing.

It's a risk to take a short term hit for longer term benefits and they're backing themselves that there's enough in the squad to do fine for six months. It'll be fine

Well it's just as likely that Watkins might break his leg, and then we've got no experienced striker. Generally though, having more experienced players on the bench is better than having fewer, especially when that player is already your top scorer.

[Bully2345]

There's also no guarantee that any money would be on the table in the summer. Ings could have stayed and broke his ankle in May and we'd be lumbered with £130k per week and that could cost a summer signing.

It's a risk to take a short term hit for longer term benefits and they're backing themselves that there's enough in the squad to do fine for six months. It'll be fine

Well it's just as likely that Watkins might break his leg, and then we've got no experienced striker. Generally though, having more experienced players on the bench is better than having fewer, especially when that player is already your top scorer.

And I'm fairly sure Emery considered the scenario of Watkins breaking his leg and decided whatever we can cobble together between Duran/Traore/Bailey/Coutinho/ANOther plus the guarantee of budget for someone he wants in the summer was preferable to having six months of Ings and the uncertainty of having to get rid of him in June.

[Pat Mustard]

£15m for Danny Ings (which is what it will be), plus the £3m or so we will save on 6 months of his wages was absolutely a great deal for us.  If he was still here in the summer we would have been paying to get rid of him, as no team would be desperate enough at that point to meet his wage demands.  His 6 goals for us came at the cost of him contributing barely anything else when he played - against Stevenage and Leeds we would have been just as well playing with 10 men.

It's like a broken record on here some times.  Yes, we would have liked more in the transfer window but if the players Emery really wants aren't available then we should wait until they are.  We're not going down, Europe was a remote possibility at best (and even then it was only ever the Conference League that was a possibility) and we have had enough of bloating the squad with shite filler that we can't then get rid of.

[Toronto Villa]

Getting rid of players wasn't the issue and quite frankly none of those players represent the future with the exception of Cam and maybe Ramsey Jr. What has left us in a pickle is not being able to bring in someone of proven ability up front because I cannot imagine that was the plan when we allowed Ings and Cam to leave. Someone must have been lined up and it fell through. Bringing Bert back will work out fine and Coutinho improving along with McGinn and Carlos coming back should be sufficient for the run in. Up front is where we might struggle unless Duran comes through quickly.

[Risso]

If he hadn't scored another goal there'd have been plenty of buyers for somebody with 6 league goals. In all likelihood, he'd have got into double figures and we'd have had no trouble shifting him.

But anyway, let's hope the rest of the season starts to pick up after the last two shit results since the transfer window shut.

[boozey182]

Sorry there’s just no way to spin that at this time we’re better not having Ings. It’s just clearly not the case.

Well, let me have a go, just for fun:

I think it will benefit the club in the long term to give any minutes that Ings might have got, to Durán. He's already looked lively and must be pushing for a start. Would he have had the same opportunities if Ings was still here?

Also, I think having Ings in the squad impacted Watkins. He is yet another one of our 'confidence' players. I think he needs to feel the backing of the club, and selling Ings demonstrated that he was the main man. Since Ings left, he's scored three goals in three games and is one of the form strikers in the league. Would he be doing as well if Ings was still here?

Then there's the Stevenage game. Emery has got rid of four of the starters from that match, including Ings. I think he's sending a message that he isn't going to accept performances like that. Is that message as valuable as Ings for the rest of the season would have been? I don't know, but I quite like the idea that he was hurt by that game and wants to make sure it never happens again.

I don't know how much truth there is in that, but surely there could be some? I just don't think it's as simple as 'he scored goals and now he's not here which means we're worse off'.

For what it's worth, I think our squad that we put out tomorrow will be the strongest match day squad of the season, which will get better when Carlos is back.

[Risso]

The Stevenage game wasn't on Ings though, it was a dog's arse of a team that got the sort of result it deserved when you play somebody as shit as Olsen. Emery didn't even have the excuse that he needed to see how piss poor Olsen was, because he'd already shown that in spades against Man U.

[Toronto Villa]

The Stevenage game wasn't on Ings though, it was a dog's arse of a team that got the sort of result it deserved when you play somebody as shit as Olsen. Emery didn't even have the excuse that he needed to see how piss poor Olsen was, because he'd already shown that in spades against Man U.

It was Stevenage. League Two Stevenage vs PL Aston Villa. At Villa Park. There was plenty of first teamers playing that it shouldn't have mattered that Olsen was playing. We should have battered them by at least the score Stoke got against them.

[Pat Mustard]

Stevenage wasn't just on Ings, but it absolutely demonstrated how little of a loss he would be - he was absolutely Blues, and dominated by League 2 defenders.

£15 million is a ridiculous amount for a 31 year old goal hanger on £150k+ a week who plays like that.  I'd want 25 goals a season from him to justify how little he offers elsewhere, not 6.

[boozey182]

The Stevenage game wasn't on Ings though, it was a dog's arse of a team that got the sort of result it deserved when you play somebody as shit as Olsen. Emery didn't even have the excuse that he needed to see how piss poor Olsen was, because he'd already shown that in spades against Man U.

Personally I think Dendonker was most to blame for the entire catastrophe, but I don't think that's the point. That team consisted of two Brazilian internationals, two players that had been paying at the World Cup a few weeks before and two more that had been transferred for about £50 million between them - and Ings on top of that. It was a team that was more than capable of beating Stevenage, even with Olsen in goal. He'd kept a clean sheet in a win against Spurs the week before, so it wasn't a case of pick Olsen and you deserve to lose.

But most of that has very little to do with my point. One potential benefit of selling Ings could be that he was one of the senior players that day, and Emery wants to send a message that he wasn't happy about it to ensure it doesn't happen again.