I just read Paul Merson's piece on Stones and how it would be best for all concerned if he went to Chelsea.
I have a number of issues with this.
Firstly, and probably most obvious, Paul Merson pundit ? He was on Sky Sport for his comedy value, a bit like Tuffnell on Question of Sport, no one was meant to take him seriously. Paul Merson giving John Stones advice on his football career. Am I the only one who see 's the flaws in this arrangement. What was the sports editor thinking when he allowed that piece to go out in his paper.
Secondly, PM is advocating that big money clubs should be allowed to pillage less well off clubs for their talent. If you have money you deserve to hold on to your position at the expense of all other clubs. If you can't compete in the market don't strive to get better because the big fish will just buy you off. He is advocating a system where competition is only between the well off. He will then wax lyrical about the lure of the FA Cup were small teams can give the big boys a bloody nose.
Finally Merson, like all so called pundits, should be lauding Everton for standing up to Chelsea. This club have struck a blow for those clubs without pockets full of money and for the meaning of a contract. Also, a player's ability to play isn't determined by the fact he played for a Big money club. I except that all players want to win trophies and compete at the highest level but how much better are you as a player if you bring your team up to a winning level as opposed to one who just joins a side which is already there. John Stones is young enough to give Everton a crack at improving and, if they can't match his ambitions move on.
I did say finally but one good thing that has come out of Merson's column is that I have learned he can write real words, I wouldn't want to bet he isn't writing them with a crayon but write none the less.
Rant ends.