John Stones transfer saga

[Saint Domingo]

"If we had a proper board the sale of stones would be bearable . The proceeds were then spent on making us better I could deal with this. Stones goes and we will get evans and some other looser as back up and the rest of the cash will vanish as usual. This is what hurts !!!"

that definitely is criticism agains our board that speculative bashing, but thats ok. it's your opinion

Not only does the cash from sales sometimes disappear but where is the transfer budget cash? Even if we sold Stones people would think the board had done well if it gave all the money to Roberto. The reality is though if we sold Stones the money plus what the board should have made available should equal about 60 mill for us. No way we'll see that though. Stones will go and we'll spend about 20 mill on two replacements the blame everyone we can think of as to why we just didn't have time to get a creative player in.

 

[Ashtonian]

Isn't the future here and now,with regard to competing,or do we keep selling our best young players,we have to lay down a marker,and tell them to do one.

yeah, and it works every other time doesn't it?

the other thing that has been lost in this thread is that John stones isnt really that good of a defender at the minute. Yes he is good enough for the first team and yes he will be a top defender in the future the way he is going. Not denying his talent or worth or anything like that. And saying that i dont want to sell him, i want him to be captain for the next 15 years at the club.

BUT

he is still learning his trade so all this 'spend x amount to replace him' 'rare find these days' doesnt add up. We sign an experienced defender from anywhere who is a little bit mobile and he will be better than stones. Will he be better in 2-3 years? Probably not, but for the money chelsea put up to sign stones that is understandable. But we dont weaken our team by signing someone and in the short term even improve it, obvious for the loss of a massive asset.

Stones is only worth what chelsea will pay, he isnt worth 20 or 30 or 50, its on what they think. So if chelsea want him then he is obviously good, just depends on how much we want that value on him to be.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Not only does the cash from sales sometimes disappear but where is the transfer budget cash? Even if we sold Stones people would think the board had done well if it gave all the money to Roberto. The reality is though if we sold Stones the money plus what the board should have made available should equal about 60 mill for us. No way we'll see that though. Stones will go and we'll spend about 20 mill on two replacements the blame everyone we can think of as to why we just didn't have time to get a creative player in.

we wont be selling him.

 

[Ashtonian]

So you think all the funds would be handed to RM from the deal? I doubt it very much we should hold him till we get the best price if we need to sell that is - Remember the Rooney affair - we gave him away!
What for - Tim Howard, Phil Neville, Darren Gibson, all coming the other way - one has been steady TH, PN, was good for one season, never an EFC captain, but made him undropable, and unfortunately Gibson has been injury prone- not the best bit of business was it??? 27 million in bits, and pieces followed by a feeder club for Unt rejects

that was a fantastic deal mate, and i stand by those words. Neville was a fantastic captain for the club, not so much player in the end but as a captain he was good. Howard was a first choice keeper since he signed, gibson is a good midfielder who is terrible for injury now. Saha also came this way and he scored a few goals for us when fit.

But do i think we will get all the money? Honestly no, hell i even think we will have a fellaini/arteta situation where we spend a little money, maybe lukaku a player or two and pocket the incoming money in the view of the future.

 

[Joey66]

that was a fantastic deal mate, and i stand by those words. Neville was a fantastic captain for the club, not so much player in the end but as a captain he was good. Howard was a first choice keeper since he signed, gibson is a good midfielder who is terrible for injury now. Saha also came this way and he scored a few goals for us when fit.

But do i think we will get all the money? Honestly no, hell i even think we will have a fellaini/arteta situation where we spend a little money, maybe lukaku a player or two and pocket the incoming money in the view of the future.

Go to specsavers!

 

[Hangleton]

well clearly they didnt want that

We may have necessarily dithered with the CBs. - maybe the club are not sure Stones sale will go through - but those enquiries were all about preparing for if it did go through.
Don't get me wrong. I would like Stones to stay.
I think the club are preparing to sell.

 

[Joey66]

....who knows what's been said. It's all a bit of a game. You ask how I would react, it's the newspapers who are saying he is keen to talk with Chelsea. I would think that goes with territory. I would be chuffed if Chelsea was after me and hoping the clubs are able to agree a fee.

Sad but probably correct!

 

[TheFinnFan]

We may have necessarily dithered with the CBs. - maybe the club are not sure Stones sale will go through - but those enquiries were all about preparing for if it did go through.
Don't get me wrong. I would like Stones to stay.
I think the club are preparing to sell.

ok mate. i still think that club wont be selling him, though. it would cause a sh** storm of epical proportions

 

[tim cahill]

No, a chunk of the fee would go to Barnsley, some of it to paying off Lukaku. We'd be left with maybe 25 mill. Out of that we'd need 2 CBs. Unless we unearthed a gem, we'd have to spend big to get anywhere close to Stones. Most likely we'd overpay for some up and comers or experienced premier league like Dann so you could almost waste that whole budget just on two inferior players. We might end up left with 5-10 mill for a creative player, absolutely nothing in today's market.

I don't want to sell him but as you're doing your sums you need to bear in mind that we already need a playmaker and a CB and presumably have some budget for it (Hopefully at least £15m). If we ended up with an extra £25m to spend we would need to replace Stones but there should be plenty of money left over to add to what we already have.

This is the way I see it:
If we keep him we would probably have: Stones + average CB + average playmaker + satisfaction of telling Jose to do one

If we lose him we would probably have: Good CB + good CB + boss playmaker + depressed feeling having given up one of our best players.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

yeah, and it works every other time doesn't it?

the other thing that has been lost in this thread is that John stones isnt really that good of a defender at the minute. Yes he is good enough for the first team and yes he will be a top defender in the future the way he is going. Not denying his talent or worth or anything like that. And saying that i dont want to sell him, i want him to be captain for the next 15 years at the club.

BUT

he is still learning his trade so all this 'spend x amount to replace him' 'rare find these days' doesnt add up. We sign an experienced defender from anywhere who is a little bit mobile and he will be better than stones. Will he be better in 2-3 years? Probably not, but for the money chelsea put up to sign stones that is understandable. But we dont weaken our team by signing someone and in the short term even improve it, obvious for the loss of a massive asset.

Stones is only worth what chelsea will pay, he isnt worth 20 or 30 or 50, its on what they think. So if chelsea want him then he is obviously good, just depends on how much we want that value on him to be.

If Stones isn't that "good" at the moment why do the league champions with the best defensive record from last year think that by paying £30m+ they'll improve their squad next season?

Why are they not just buying one of these cheaper, better, alternatives you think is out there for the next 3 years?

 

[Azza]

Cahill is at it now - http://www.theguardian.com/football...-john-stones-everton-chelsea?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[PITA]

If Stones isn't that "good" at the moment why do the league champions with the best defensive record from last year think that by paying £30m+ they'll improve their squad next year?

Why are they not just buying one of these cheaper, better, alternatives you thinks is out there for the next 3 years?

Some people seem to want to persistently offer the contrarian view.

 

[sageyefc]

I don't want to sell him but as you're doing your sums you need to bear in mind that we already need a playmaker and a CB and presumably have some budget for it (Hopefully at least £15m). If we ended up with an extra £25m to spend we would need to replace Stones but there should be plenty of money left over to add to what we already have.

This is the way I see it:
If we keep him we would probably have: Stones + average CB + average playmaker + satisfaction of telling Jose to do one

If we lose him we would probably have: Good CB + good CB + boss playmaker + depressed feeling having given up one of our best players.

Add in signing on fees and agent fees and 3 lots of high wages onto our playing budget

 

[Dithering Dougie]

Some people seem to want to persistently offer the contararian view.

Maybe, but maybe not...

Maybe it's down to something else.

 

[macst]

Cahill is at it now - http://www.theguardian.com/football...-john-stones-everton-chelsea?CMP=share_btn_tw

Oooh look, it's Steve Brenner AGAIN...