sylofox Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 Kramaric and Defoe for me, Ulloa is better then Ings. If we had them in several of our previous games we would be sitting pretty in mid table. We won't defend better then we are doing at this level even if we invested in the back four so I think Pearson has the right idea. We lack goals for not against. True but with a record of 2 against in every game just put more pressure on your forwards. Plus a weak defence means our mids have to give more cover meaning our options going forward are less. Brian Clough was no mug and said build from the back if you don't concede you can't lose. Scoring 3 is no good if you let in 4.
Bugg Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 Not sure how Ings is only a year older than me. The guy looks like he's in his 30s
Babylon Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 I know it is early in the window but all talk seems to be about forwards. All the talk about forwards... other than the 8 or so threads in the transfer section about defenders.
Babylon Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 19:48 SSN FOXES EYE STRIKE DUO Sky sources have told us that Andrej Kramaric is currently in Leicester discussing personal terms ahead of a proposed move to the King Power Stadium. But even if they do sign the Rijeka forward, Sky Sports understands Nigel Pearson could still pursue Burnley striker Danny Ings after a bid of around £7.5million was turned down by the Clarets before the transfer window opened. As I said in the other thread, if we do start splashing out it really does ask questions about what went on in the summer. Was the money there, did Pearson want to spend it, was the DOF just that shit he couldn't get deals over the line, have the owners now changed tack?
dannythefox Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 Lings would be a good signing now the Kramaric deal is off but can't see him coming here in a month of Sundays unless Burnley go down and we stay up yes cause your in the know!
MC Prussian Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 Not sure how Ings is only a year older than me. The guy looks like he's in his 30s The constant exhaustion takes its toll - that's nothing new with footballers.
ktfox59 Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 As I said in the other thread, if we do start splashing out it really does ask questions about what went on in the summer. Was the money there, did Pearson want to spend it, was the DOF just that shit he couldn't get deals over the line, have the owners now changed tack?Be careful babs with sensible thoughts like that here. Have been saying stuff like that for ages here when the world and his dog were on NPs back for our problems.
indierich06 Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 Only 5 goals? That's a decent return from a striker nowadays. Heading for 10 for the season, people scoring that in the Prem go for £6-£14m. That's not my issue. People are talking about him like he's going to come in and have some incredible effect on our squad, or like he's streets ahead of what we've currently got - I don't think he is. Ulloa's certainly had a better season so far and Ings doesn't really seem to have helped in Burnley's relegation battle all that much, seeing as they're still well down there with us. I wouldn't be upset if we got him, just not convinced he's got this superior quality which is going to drag us out of the relegation zone.
Joe the Fox Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 I would pay the £7+ million for Ings just to watch Dyche's press interview when they're relegated come May
Guest Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 At the very least it would help us by dooming Burnley to one of the relegation spots, even if we didn't play him. If we can spend 21m on 3 players from 3 teams causing them to be relegated then we should do it.
LCCFox96 Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 On the Sky Sports article on Ings, we might be in pursuit of him but getting a reasonable price from Burnley will be a huge challenge. Ings has also publicly stated he wants to stay and honour his contract. I think Ings is worth £7.5-8.5 million as raw market value for his potential, current ability and attacking prowess but clearly he'll be worth more than that to Burnley so we will undoubtedly pay over the odds for him.
indierich06 Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 On the Sky Sports article on Ings, we might be in pursuit of him but getting a reasonable price from Burnley will be a huge challenge. Ings has also publicly stated he wants to stay and honour his contract. I think Ings is worth £7.5-8.5 million as raw market value for his potential, current ability and attacking prowess but clearly he'll be worth more than that to Burnley so we will undoubtedly pay over the odds for him. If they want any more than that then we shouldn't bother. Wait till they're relegated and pinch him then.
Babylon Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 That's not my issue. People are talking about him like he's going to come in and have some incredible effect on our squad, or like he's streets ahead of what we've currently got - I don't think he is. Ulloa's certainly had a better season so far and Ings doesn't really seem to have helped in Burnley's relegation battle all that much, seeing as they're still well down there with us. I wouldn't be upset if we got him, just not convinced he's got this superior quality which is going to drag us out of the relegation zone. Well the difference between 5 goals between now and the end of the season and say 1 or 2 goals (as Vardy and Nugent might have if they keep up their current form) could mean the difference between survival or relegation. We don't need an "incredible effect", we've seen we aren't a million miles away, what we need is that little bit of extra quality.
deep blue Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 Kramaric and Defoe for me, Ulloa is better then Ings. If we had them in several of our previous games we would be sitting pretty in mid table. We won't defend better then we are doing at this level even if we invested in the back four so I think Pearson has the right idea. We lack goals for not against. I disagree. If we had cut out just 6 of our catastrophic defensive errors then we would be 9 points better off (based on averaging that 3 would turn a loss into a draw, and three would turn a draw into a win). But you can't assume that a better striker would have scored 6 of our best spurned chances because it's not so nailed on. For example, the ball might take an uneven bounce just before contact, or the keeper might still make a worldie. Therefore, whilst I agree that a more clinical striker is needed, an improvement in the defence would have the greater effect. An extra 9 points would have made a hell of a difference, and you can't argue that it would be hard to bring in a LB better than Konch.
walkerleeds Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 True but with a record of 2 against in every game just put more pressure on your forwards. Plus a weak defence means our mids have to give more cover meaning our options going forward are less. Brian Clough was no mug and said build from the back if you don't concede you can't lose. Scoring 3 is no good if you let in 4. Fairly sure we had a similar ethos in our league one relegation season to be fair.
deep blue Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 As I said in the other thread, if we do start splashing out it really does ask questions about what went on in the summer. Was the money there, did Pearson want to spend it, was the DOF just that shit he couldn't get deals over the line, have the owners now changed tack?It's easy to see now that Robinson might well have been at fault.For example, we fiddled about far too long with Ulloa's transfer that we might well have jeopardised it - boxing too clever. And look at the Cresswell situation. I well remember when we played Ipswich and the tunnel cam revealed body language in NP's exchange with him that led several posters to the conclusion that he was a nailed-on signing-to-be for us. Could it be that we'd have signed him before WH got their act together if we'd got in earlier and with conviction?
Babylon Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 It's easy to see now that Robinson might well have been at fault. For example, we fiddled about far too long with Ulloa's transfer that we might well have jeopardised it - boxing too clever. And look at the Cresswell situation. I well remember when we played Ipswich and the tunnel can revealed body language in NP's greeting him that led several posters to the conclusion that he was a nailed-on signing-to-be for us. Could it be that we'd have signed him before WH got their act together if we'd got in earlier and with conviction? Who knows, something clearly went on with Robinson but I'm not keen to heap it all on him when we don't know for sure. But it's certainly possible, just as it's possible the money wasn't there or Pearson didn't want to spend it (I think that's unlikely seeing as he's talked so often about missing out on targets).
deep blue Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 Who knows, something clearly went on with Robinson but I'm not keen to heap it all on him when we don't know for sure. But it's certainly possible, just as it's possible the money wasn't there or Pearson didn't want to spend it (I think that's unlikely seeing as he's talked so often about missing out on targets). You're right Bab's, it's all guesswork. Odd that the money might not have been there in the summer but seems to be there in abundance now, though, unless it was an FFP timing thing. Or maybe management/owners wanted to test the water for the first half of the season, with intention to splash out in this window to recover the situation if things went badly (as they have!), but that's a risky strategy given the difficulties of the winter window. Too much speculation - the mind keeps going round and round!
nettle Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 I reckon the money was there in the summer we were linked with a few players but on a number of occasion's Pearson said he was happy with what he'd got. Now if this was down to the DOF that's why he has gone, but to be honest now we have to spend too have a chance of staying up.
surrifox Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 I reckon the money was there in the summer we were linked with a few players but on a number of occasion's Pearson said he was happy with what he'd got. Now if this was down to the DOF that's why he has gone, but to be honest now we have to spend too have a chance of staying up. when we were looking in the summer at the likes of Deeney for upwards of £10m why did we not go for Ings at that time (its possible of course that we did) - £7.5 m looks like a snip at those overheated prices)
Jon the Hat Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 when we were looking in the summer at the likes of Deeney for upwards of £10m why did we not go for Ings at that time (its possible of course that we did) - £7.5 m looks like a snip at those overheated prices) They didn't accept £7.5M so how can it be a snip? He is out of contract in June so I guess that affects the price.
Merchant Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 I only want this to happen because Dyche would have a meltdown and he seems like a legit nobhead
MC Prussian Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 I only want this to happen because Dyche would have a meltdown and he seems like a legit nobhead I think we're just teasing and trying to unsettle Burnley a little at the moment - I don't see this as a genuine bid.
Merchant Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 I think we're just teasing and trying to unsettle Burnley a little at the moment - I don't see this as a genuine bid. Yeah I don't see it happening at all...still be fun though
ramboacdc Posted 7 January 2015 Posted 7 January 2015 i cannot see burnley letting go of him. especially now vokes is fit again
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.