The rumour mill picked up over the weekend with reports that Southampton are interested in bringing Danny Ings back to St Mary's a year after he left for Aston Villa, but how plausible is a return both from the players perspective, financially and the Saints supporters themselves.

When Danny Ings left for Aston Villa at the beginning of last August, it was a big shock, Saints supporters had been braced for Ings to move during the summer, but they thought if he went it would only be to a big club and as the Premier League season came with 10 days of starting and no real interest from a so called Big Six side, it looked like Ings would be staying.

That was apparently what the club was also thinking, they reportably had a Gentleman's agreement in place with the player that if a side in the Champions League came in they would not stand in his way, but if that was not the case then he would be happy to stay and discuss signing the contract on the table said to make him the highest paid player ever at Southampton FC and the first to top £100,000 a week at the club.

That all suddenly changed on Wednesday 4th August, many Saints fans were already in St Mary's ahead of the pre season friendly against Athletic Club Of Bilbao when suddenly the news broke that Ings had signed for Aston Villa.

This was a complete shock and to be honest for many it hurt, Ings was supposedly truly one of our own having been born and brought up in the City, surely he more than any would have loyalty.

No one expected him to turn down the chance of one final chance of glory in the Champions League, but let's be blunt turning 29 and time not being on his side, signing for anyone not in that Big Six would not enhance his career.

The club as well were shocked, it all happened with indecent haste and so much so the first the players themselves knew about it was when Ings failed to arrive for the game against Bilbao.

But now the rumours are back linking him with a return to St Mary's and it is said that Saints have asked Aston Villa to keep us informed of the situation.

But is this a viable move financially for Southampton ?

The answer is yes it can be, ironically after a period where we had to pay players big wages until their contract ends, due to they not wanting to go anywhere and take a pay cut, we could benefit from that very situation at Villa Park.

The problem for Villa is that Ings is on £130,000 a week, he turns 30 in a week or so and he has two years left on his contract.

After his poor season for Villa and indeed his last season at Saints which saw him score just 12 goals in the Premier League, he is not hot property.

Clubs who would want to sign him are not going to pay anything near the £30 million that we received for him a year ago and if they were willing to pay a fee, they would not be paying him anywhere near that £130k a week.

Perhaps not even half of that and would Ings be willing to take a drop of £65 k a week in wages to go to a club that is mid table. To put that in more perspective, over the remaining 2 years of his contract, that would mean him waving goodbye to around £7 million.

Given that £30k a week more at Villa seemed very important to him a year ago, I would suggest that he isn't going to drop £65k a week now.

So Villa are in the position Saints have been in with the likes of Carrillo & Lemina etc, they have no chance of recouping the transfer fee, so they have to try and get him off the wage bill for the last two years, if as is rumoured he is not in their plans for next season.

So perhaps a loan move is in the offing ! Although it has to be said that both another of his former club's Bournemouth and also Brighton are said to be interested, perhaps showing that this rumour is not at an advanced stage, just speculative.

Financially Saints could afford Ings on loan, even if we had to pay all of his £130k wages to Villa and it should be noted here that the loan deals are between the two clubs not a club and the player, Ings get paid by Villa, we pay Villa.

So a one year loan deal is very financially viable, Villa will try to eke out a small loan fee, but if we paid say £2 million for that and his full wages that would still only be an outlay of £5.5 million for the year.

That would be very affordable and worth the gamble for a player who perhaps is not going to completely recapture his form of a couple of seasons ago, but is capable of getting into double figures.

But perhaps the biggest question is whether the fans would accept him back, as mentioned for many it was a painful divorce a year ago, it was like arriving home to find a note on the mantelpiece saying "I'm Gone"

He had not chased glory, he had chased money and that was what hurt.

So would we accept him back, a poll started on the Ugly Inside Message board showed the fan base very split in the first hours, 43% would welcome him back, 32% said no he isn't what we need, 15% stated that although he would be good he had made his own bed and burnt his bridged, with just 10% undecided.

So what are your thoughts on a return to St mary's for Danny Ings, give your thoughts below and also vote in our online poll using the link below.

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/forum/286269/would-you-like-i

Photo: Action Images

landsdownsaint added 09:42 - Jun 13 I would have him back but I think he will go to Brighton who are a descent striker away from becoming the new Leister & Tony Blooms a gambler & I see him trying his luck with Ings
4

highfield49 added 09:57 - Jun 13 If the club has £130k a week wages available to spend on a striker I suspect that there are younger, fitter, better quality and more motivated players available on loan.
6

wessexman added 10:06 - Jun 13 I think it is unfair to hint Ings is a mercenary. ALL players are out to fleece the clubs for as much as the clubs are prepared to pay....Ings is no different. The fact he is a local lad may make it harder to bear, but.....Villa were prepared to pay £ 30K a week more or £ 1.5 M a year, and with his injury record....good luck to him. But.....it does not mean I like it. My era was the 70s when loyalty counted for something. When the Premiership was formed, they created a monster.....we are now reaping the benefits.

4

halftimeorange added 10:13 - Jun 13 He might just keep us up. At the moment we don't have much to look forward to.
3

redwight added 10:47 - Jun 13 Nick, you suggest that we might be prepared to pay his wages in full and maybe even a loan fee on top. What I find so depressing is that it never seems to work the other way round with Saints. We weren't able to unload any of the players we saddled ourselves with (you mentioned two) under similar terms. Why do we always seem to be the one's to suffer?
2

JoeEgg added 11:01 - Jun 13 "What I find so depressing is that it never seems to work the other way round with Saints." rewright Fortunately there is still plenty of time left for the new regime to do their business. Right now - apart from the goalkeeper rumours - there has been little to get excited about.especially involving home-based players. It has to be hoped that our scouts will do their best in markets abroad and perhaps with a new coach any new talent will be put to more effective use next time around!

0

underweststand added 11:19 - Jun 13 Few people ( fans ?) should blame Danny for taking the best opportunity to secure a deal to see him through to the end of his Prem. career. Now that Gerrard has consigned him to the bench (when fit) Villa need to find a solution for a player who still has 2 years (?) left on his contract and a very sizable salary to pay out during the time. Some fans will moan, but I suggest that many of us (I count myself in that group) have seen some classic performances from him and still relish the thought of seeing him in a Saints shirt again - even for a season. Villa have until the end of the window ( Sept.1) to find an answer, and it may come down to the last week before any club will agree to loan him /and - on subsidized wages. We know his injury history and cannot expect 90 minutes every week, but he is a player who can turn a game single handed, and if we don't find a solution to our striker drought, we may need someone like him to fill the gap. Financing such a loan deal would be up to the Board to finalise, but I won't be holding my breath.

0

felly1 added 11:38 - Jun 13 Che Adams, 15 million.. 96 games 20 goals. Adam Armstrong, 15 million.. 23 games 2 goals. Danny Ings, 19 million.... 67 games 34 goals. Yes please.
1

Lazz added 11:51 - Jun 13 He’s not the player he was, he’ll spend more time on the sick table.
-1

Crispinmumbles added 12:54 - Jun 13 He's a fox-in-the-box. I think he looked sharp for Villa but whilst I would welcolme his guile, I am still a bit hurt by his hunt for a big payday when we were doing our best to give him one.
-1

Kenm added 14:30 - Jun 13 I'd take him back, at present there's nobody who scored as often as he did !, so bring him back unless Saints have a secret goal scorer in the pipeline ?
0

darthvader added 07:57 - Jun 14 Take him back but pay as you play or money for goals/assists. If we agree to pay stupid wages then you know with our luck he would find another injury to sideline him for most of the season,or sulk again and would he care ? Does a snake care ? Would he fück . Only as a last desperate resort take him back
0

Blogs 32 bloggers

Stoke City Polls