Danny Ings

[Alex]

He does seem like the sort you really want to succeed.

You mean like someone who plays for Liverpool that isn't called El Hadj Diouf?

[The_weatherman]

You mean like someone who plays for Liverpool that isn't called El Hadj Diouf?

You know what I mean.

[McDermotX]

That's great. They might not be very good but we have a very likeable squad at the moment, full of seemingly really good characters off the pitch. I know it's not much but it's a start.

They're a wonderful group of young men

Outstanding.

Of course, massive bellends like Balotelli evens it up a bit.

[Roboklopp]

And $t€rling. The penis.

[McDermotX]

Yeah.......actually, there's not many of them I'd stand and talk to thinking about it.

Still, they're not paid completely over the top in order to be liked.......or to win things obviously.

[Shaggy]

#LFC have had a £5m bid for Danny Ings rejected by Burnley, who are seeking £10m. (Paul Joyce)

[McDermotX]

Probably somewhere in the middle would be the agreed or tribunal fee you'd think.

[Rowan]

They're a wonderful group of young men

[cream]

£10m, **** off.

[Gazzla]

Let it go to tribunal if that's the case. I think our offer of £5m is more than generous

[MrMichael]

The alternative narrative is that we are making an inspired signing of someone with incredible potential, when in fact we are buying a second tier striker for real money. Investing in the first eleven, and goalscorers in particular, is a far more efficient way of spending money in the PL. That's where the ings money should be going imo.

I've not seen one person in seriousness name it an "inspired signing of incredible potential", that's rather unrepresentative in strength of anyone's argument. We absolutely need to invest in the first team, again I've not seen anyone say otherwise, however we can't solely invest in it alone, that isn't how football and any club works these days.

We spent as much if not more than we are likely to spend on Ings, a player who has proven he can be a threat against some of the better teams in the league last season, than we did on Ilori, Alberto, Aspas, Coates et al, players who have added absolutely nothing to the club, let alone the likes of Borini, Allen, Markovic and Lovren who seem destined to squad roles at best next season. Plus in this case we'll actually make a profit even if it doesn't work out and we sell Ings on in a season or two, can't say that for any of those.

Youre comparing it to the balotelli purchase, which is a bit of a low blow seeing as that was a cluster ****. We have a player that was a third of the price with the right attitude already and we should keep him and replace Mario with one player worth as much as we can afford.

I don't see how it is a low blow, I was just comparing the reaction of one striker signing to another among the fans. As for keeping Lambert, well maybe but I do think Ings is a better fit for us in footballing terms and you're really assuming that the difference between a fee received for Lambert & the one we pay for Ings (could be what, about £3m) would make all the difference in who we could replace Mario with; I'm not sure that will at all prove to be true.

[Shaggy]

ian herbert @ianherbs
Liverpool face paying more for Ings than expected because Burnley have accepted £12m Spurs offer. http://goo.gl/QQPNJP #lfc #clarets #thfc

[Kenneth]

Yep, it was mentioned last week that spurs interest would persuade the pannel that his market value was higher. £5M wasn't a good idea and 10 would be mental.

[BobTheCharmer]

Strange how this all works, we annouce the signing and Burnley accept an offer that can't go through. I wonder if the rules allow for Chelsea to bid £25m just to increase our tribunal price? I doubt that however the whole thing is weird.

[RichC]

Interesting to see how this plays out, if Spurs bid does influence the cost I think you'll see other teams doing similar things to drive other teams costs up.