John Stones transfer saga

Status
Not open for further replies.

blulouie said:
Totally contradicts it "Dont have to sell" then dont sell.
Click to expand...

But 'don't have to sell' is completely different from 'won't sell'. All it means is 'if you don't meet our valuation then we won't'.

Best hope here for all of us who don't want him sold is that Chelsea decide it is too much for a CB and pull out. And tbh with you there is a fair to middling chance they might do that. Hopefully they will, but as ever it depends on how much they really want him.
 
The Equaliser said:
Right, we don't have to. But if the club can make a profit of 10 times what they paid for him it will happen.
Click to expand...
15% to Barnsley plus the usual fees think its a bit cheap these days , someone is going to be paying for a Top player for the next 10 yrs.
But still should stand by "Dont need to sell" not worth making comments like that unless they arent meant.
 

blulouie said:
Why not , Bobby say's we dont have to sell.....right ?
Click to expand...
We don't have to sell but with a shareholder deficit number of 14mio, we remain a club that cannot, out of principle, turn down impossibly big money ie a 'we WON'T sell' policy.

I personally would like to retain Stones and also hope like hell that all our other young guns have a dynamite season, and next season...and we get regular CL football...and massively increased revenue from global exposure. At that moment we have achieved financial escape velocity.

The optimist in me hopes for this panglossian denouement...but the Evertonian in me denies it too much oxygen.
 
if smart, keep another season (minimum) while he continues to improve. if you are going to sell the lid, don't pawn him off to the first big offer. wait until he sparks a bidding war ffs.

I want to keep him, mind you, as that debt is paltry compared to the revenue the game now generates... and think if we sell him, just paving the way for other targets who might be tempted by bigger paychecks and CL football. the moment one is gone, it's a clear signal of our (lack of) intent.
 
The Equaliser said:
Right, we don't have to. But if the club can make a profit of 10 times what they paid for him it will happen.
Click to expand...
Still don't think we will sell this window. He will play more with us than them, which will be important for him to impress woy but after the euros, he will be off as much as much as I hate to say it. Will definitely be more than just Jose in for him though, so think the price will be higher than quoted now
 
deipnosophist said:
We don't have to sell but with a shareholder deficit number of 14mio, we remain a club that cannot, out of principle, turn down impossibly big money ie a 'we WON'T sell' policy.
Click to expand...

The shareholder deficit is likely to have been eliminated by the end of the 2014/15 accounting period (31st May 2015). Besides which the club has managed to run with a deficit for many years covered by increased borrowings and player sales.

There is absolutely no financial requirement to sell Stones it is purely a question of Stones desire to stay and the Board's commitment to retaining our most promising player assets.
 

So lets say, hypothetically, we have some how managed to piss away ALL of the new TV revenue, and are now a completely sell-to-buy club.

Would you prefer:

a.) We keep Stones, and start the season with the squad as is, hoping that Galloway/Browning are good enough to deputize at center back if we need them to (or play Barry/Besic there if we find ourselves in extremely dire straights)

or

b.) We sell Stones for a high price, get Zouma on loan, buy Johnny Evans and have enough left over to invest in an exciting wide player or a #10.

Honestly, given those choices (and I made option B more positive than is likely), I think I would have to choose option A. Stones is THAT good, and if he has a good season we could get a lot more for him. I don't care about the England national team, but from a player development perspective that would definitely be his better option as well.
 
the esk said:
The shareholder defecit is likely to have been eliminated by the end of the 2014/15 accounting period (31st May 2015). Besides which the club has managed to run with a deficit for many years covered by increased borrowings and player sales.

There is absolutely no financial requirement to sell Stones it is purely a question of Stones desire to stay and the Board's commitment to retaining our most promising player assets.
Click to expand...
Surely we should be debt free over the next few years?
 
the esk said:
The shareholder defecit is likely to have been eliminated by the end of the 2014/15 accounting period (31st May 2015). Besides which the club has managed to run with a deficit for many years covered by increased borrowings and player sales.

There is absolutely no financial requirement to sell Stones it is purely a question of Stones desire to stay and the Board's commitment to retaining our most promising player assets.
Click to expand...

See I just don't get this. In the 2014/15 year player sales were virtually nil as opposed to a profit of what £28m in 2013/14 .Purchases as we know increased significantly and as a result amortisation will have ilikewise increased on top of that the board warned in the last set of accounts that there was uncertainty around borrowings being maintained at what was then current levels

Other than the odd or should I put small increases in revenue where in the 2014/15 year will the money come from to compensate for the significant drop in player trading income? From 2016/17 I will agree that the TV money will rise but where is the money coming from to buy for the 2015/16 season and indeed 2016/17 season unless from sales?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top