• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Danny Ings - Burnley's Number 10

Gutter Boy said:
I can't actually think of a player more Kane-like in European football. He's a little bit shorter yes, but his movement, positioning and style are very similar
Click to expand...

So Gutter, your Ings dream is dead, what next for poch? I dont think the interest in Martial is for the striker spot. He looks to me like a left wing forward
 
wiziwig said:
Looks like Ings has joined the Liverpool ... what a lady garden
Click to expand...
Bit harsh :D

I'm not too bothered about this signing. He's just an average striker from what I have seen and the upside is that it might leave the us with a free run at Benteke, who I rate much higher.
 
Rorschach said:
Bit harsh :D

I'm not too bothered about this signing. He's just an average striker from what I have seen and the upside is that it might leave the us with a free run at Benteke, who I rate much higher.
Click to expand...

But Benteke will cost us nearer £30m. I just can't see us forking out that kind of money for a player merely to take the workload off Harry Kane. Or is the plan to play both in the starting eleven ?

I think if we're going to sign a second out and out striker to share Kane's workload, he will either be cheap and one for the future , or cheap and experienced.
 
So can we lock this thread now or is it going to be one of them threads that get's dragged up after we lose and everyone blames Levy for not buying him?
 
I'm pleased that his heart was set on Liverpool. While I think Ings is a good player, I don't think he was at all right for our system. It smacked me as being as an opportunistic signing as opposed to us signing a player for a position that needs filling for us. I would imagine that we have known all along that the player was off to Liverpool and our £12 million bid seemed most out of character from our chairman, who would've known that we could probably have picked up the player for £5 million or so less than that if letting it go to the committee to set the price. Was the bid to keep Burnley sweet to land Trippier? Try to force up the fee the committee sets of Liverpool? Or to ensure that Liverpool bring in a player now and get them out of the way as a rival for another signing?

Hopefully our club have been talking to QPR and Charlie Austin's people. I think he is the best option out there for a Kane back-up, he will be available for a fee similar to that £12 million we seemingly bid for Ings as well.
 
wiziwig said:
But Benteke will cost us nearer £30m. I just can't see us forking out that kind of money for a player merely to take the workload off Harry Kane. Or is the plan to play both in the starting eleven ?

I think if we're going to sign a second out and out striker to share Kane's workload, he will either be cheap and one for the future , or cheap and experienced.
Click to expand...
Benteke's cost may not be 30mil. That is just his release clause and his valuation is dependent on many other factors. With Tim at Villa we may be able use a makeweight in the deal (Ade) or sweetened with a few loan signings (Townsend and Carroll).

Anything north of £20 mill could be seen as too high for a 'backup' striker but I don't view it like that. I'm of the opinion that we need two top class strikers to be competitive in the top 4 race, and indeed the huge number of fixtures we will have inthe other competitions. To expect Kane to have a similar season to his last is a bit optimistic. He may have or his form may drop badly. He also could get injured on day one so I'd prefer his stand-in to be as good as we can find.

Benteke is a bit inconsistent but on his game unplayable. He gives us a more direct route when we need it but he's not only a target man. He has a lot more to his game than that and I think he could be a great foil for Kane when both are on the pitch.

Edit: And he is Dutch so he'll settle in well with the other Dutch players in our squad.
 
Never sold on Ings......looked to me a player that had to try hard to be really on it, and that is hard to sustain over a whole season.

Charlie Austin maybe a bit the same but feels he is physically a bigger handful.

Remy if available, could play WF as well as CF and compared to our 3 behind the forward is a much better finisher. (unlikely chelsea will ever sell us anything)
 
Finney Is Back said:
... our £12 million bid seemed most out of character from our chairman, who would've known that we could probably have picked up the player for £5 million or so less than that if letting it go to the committee to set the price. Was the bid to keep Burnley sweet to land Trippier? Try to force up the fee the committee sets of Liverpool? Or to ensure that Liverpool bring in a player now and get them out of the way as a rival for another signing?
Click to expand...

Very interesting conspiracy theories...
 
For 30m for a proven scorer in our league yes.

Mourinho has to want him and think he can fit in with our team.

Really think covid fudged us because we were starting to improve the squad. Ings would be a proper top level striker to give kane a rest or play instead of him.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
For 30m for a proven scorer in our league yes.

Mourinho has to want him and think he can fit in with our team.

Really think covid fudged us because we were starting to improve the squad. Ings would be a proper top level striker to give kane a rest or play instead of him.
Click to expand...

I believe he absolutely does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back