The great paradox of Aston Villa's Danny Ings sale

Veni. Vidi. Vici. Villa.

He came. He saw. He conquered (?).

Well, kind of?

For Aston Villa, there is no wilder signing than Danny Ings. A striking icon, a clear talent who on his day would touch 'elite levels'. Yet someone who is extremely expensive to hire and play, and someone who wasn't truly needed - ever - at the club.

His arrival at Villa was defined by panic and surprise, and he is the ghost of the prior transfer policy at the club.

Panic, because he was crowbarred - along with Emi Buendia and Leon Bailey - into a motley trio that CEO Christian Purslow had defined as 'being able to replace bits of Jack Grealish' - a Villa idol on the precipice of a massive move to Manchester City.

Surprise, because many people only cottoned onto the transfer when it happened. Journalists on the Southampton & Villa beats were stumped. Fans had no idea. Rumours were scarce. It simply happened.

There's a reason you didn't know. It's not because journalists failed, it is because by examining all the context of the Ings move, we can now see what happened in crystal-clear detail.

Fans get caught up on rumours. There's the fabled 'smokescreen' where rumours surface so a club can get the jump on another move (barely ever happens and is used up). The presence of rumors does not confirm a transfer, absence does not deny it. Names are fed into the mixer by agents working on a colossal and ever-shifting trading floor. There's actually a lot less bullshit than you might think - and links are links for a reason; mostly they are names on the wind. The number of players shopped and sold to clubs in the transfer windows is wild.

So, if you don't hear anything, it's because nobody did. It just happened for various reasons. The most obvious one? Panic.

You could define Ings as a panic buy. Negotiations were rapid, Villa paid Southampton's price - and then they paid Ings' price. It was a simple act of getting on the blower and finding the best fit - that day - for £25m.

1.5 years later and we can safely say that the transfer didn't need to happen. We're glad it did - because Ings inarguably performed well - but Villa could've done better.

However, it is worth bearing in mind that they could've done so much worse.

A few years ago, one of my longform pitches for the Birmingham Mail after Villa survived the drop in 19/20 was 'What ex-Villa owners would do in this transfer window.'

I've forgotten what the idea was for Randy Lerner and Doug Ellis - but I remember the Xia part of the article I never got around to creating.

I remember the Xia part specifically because of Ings - because Ings is the most Xia-esque signing that Villa could've made in 2020. A ridiculous splurge of cash on a known quantity that isn't that much better than players in Villa's transfer planning - ie Ollie Watkins.

That's perhaps slightly unfair on Ings - but it's bang on Villa under Xia vibes. His first season at the helm saw Villa buy three strikers of 'elite' quality at Championship level. Ross McCormack, Jon Kodjia, and Scott Hogan. All three came in for roughly the same amount, all three were given relatively huge wage packets. All three failed to live up to their billing.  Arguments can be made that Kodjia thrived - but that faded very quickly due to injury. The fact is, peak Xia is investing over thirty million pounds into three players, and getting acceptable output from one of them. Essentially, that would make Kodjia - at the time - Villa's record signing by the default that he carried an additional £20m in dead value on his shoulders with his striking partners who couldn't even play at the same time as him. What's more, they probably weren't needed. The true crime of that triple-splurge is that Villa could've simply bought one of those players (ideally Kodjia) and perhaps received better value from a trio of Gabby Agbonlahor, Rudy Gestede, and [insert signing here]. Hindsight is a bitch.

There are so many similarities between Xia's policy (if you can call it that) and the signing of Danny Ings. There's one critical difference though.

Ings exorcised that particular ghost, and after digging into the details, it's quite impossible to argue that he didn't redeem himself - and Purslow (a little).

Now, he's off to West Ham - and this is where it is paradoxically nigh on impossible to deny that Ings was a good buy; and a good sell, but also that he was entirely pointless and without aim at the club. An expensive keepsake for a club desperate to reclaim its place at the height of English football. He scored goals - brilliant ones - but never seemed part of the greater project at Villa.

Villa will receive £10-15m for a player who isn't being utilised all that well, isn't playing exceptionally well, and won't get any younger. They are recouping a decent fee.

At the same time, he was Villa's top scorer this season. He played 30 games worth of minutes in his Villan's career and bagged 13 goals. This season he is currently in the top ten league goalscorers. He didn't fall off after his move from Southampton at all, not really.

You can't argue that. His output and endeavour were valuable - but not really to anything more than his own stats. For such a player, there was never a sealed place in the starting lineup despite his stat line.

So you can see why the sale is difficult for some to swallow. Ings was and remains a good player, and an even better character.

You can also see why the sale had to happen. Where was his role? What does he do next season? What is his value next season? Does his scoring rate continue?

The sale of Ing starts the unpacking of a very odd few eras of Villa transfers. Things that have worked, while at the same time glueing up the long-term goals of the Villa.

It also exorcises the decision-making that has haunted Villa for a long time. The sale of Ings is - right now - brutally effective. It didn't need to happen, much like his purchase, and the club has acted just as quickly with his sale.

All that we can hope now, is that Villa act as efficiently when it comes to the man who will replace Danny Ings - and potentially Watkins - and if that means waiting until the summer when buying is easier, so be it.

Where the club have thrown away trust with erratic actions in the past, they have earned a little now.

Perhaps.