John Stones transfer saga

Groucho · July 29, 2015

Brennan said:

Back to John Stones please.

TheFinnFan · July 29, 2015

blulouie said:
Deary me club say "No intention of selling John Stones"...cant be any clearer.
Low and behold some see this as a time to bash the board...cant win here.

people who hate our board would dismiss every good thing our board would do.

jagsballs · July 29, 2015

roydo said:
Talksport.

"We have been told emphatically that Stones is not for sale"

No they havent. They've seen Sly Sports tweet. Nobody has contacted SSN IMO

LinekersLegs · July 29, 2015

Brownie said:
Like who?

I meant in general rather than Everton.

Perhaps we are different and will always let a player go even if we don't get a decent fee but we certainly seemed prepared to in the Fellaini/Lescott cases.

Brennan · July 29, 2015

blulouie said:
Deary me club say "No intention of selling John Stones"...cant be any clearer.
Low and behold some see this as a time to bash the board...cant win here.

They have no intention of selling him, unless the right offer comes in.

I'm not bashing the board, simply pointing out the realities of football. If Chelsea offered £100m we'd accept it. £90m, £80m, £70m, £60m, £50m. Eventually you get to the lowest figure we would accept and that is the truth.

glorydaze · July 29, 2015

Close thread.

TheFinnFan · July 29, 2015

Brennan said:

offff topic

roydo · July 29, 2015

jagsballs said:
No they havent. They've seen Sly Sports tweet. Nobody has contacted SSN IMO

Just what the lad just said. "Everton have contacted us and said etc etc"

BoysInBlue · July 29, 2015

People are questioning whether EFC have actually contacted SSN - lol.

Like SSN go out of their way to give EFCs side of the story of their own volition.

Come on... Everton have very clearly - finally - starting making noises of their own through the media. About time too.

bitter-no-better · July 29, 2015

glorydaze said:
Close thread.

Rename it. It's so last week.

TheFinnFan · July 29, 2015

who is that "official" ?

bizzaro · July 29, 2015

the esk said:
I'm not sure how you know the terms of the Lukaku deal as there is nothing in the public domain re the payment schedule.

Secondly virtually all commercial contracts (and particularly were credit is used and there is the prospect of additional business during the credit period) will have a clause allowing re-negotiation of terms by mutual agreement.

Re Everton's current strategy of saying nothing, assuming Stones is happy to stay as per his public statement and we are not willing to sell as per our initial response then the only people getting upset are Chelsea and Mourinho.

Hope we continue to say nothing further, we have no need to do so.

Not where there is potential for third party ownership - which if the contract is renegotiable means Chelsea could wield undue influence over the club or player. Thereby questions could be raised over Lukaku's ownership.

Third party ownership is illegal in English football.

Lukaku's transfer isn't like a contract for goods or sale.

It was the transfer of the players registration and once concluded it cannot be renegotiated.

See article 18bis in FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players

Article 18bis Third-party influence on clubs

1. No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract or any third party to acquire the ability to influence in employment and transfer-related matters its independence, its policies or the performance of its teams.

2. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee may impose disciplinary measures on clubs that do not observe the obligations set out in this article.

roydo · July 29, 2015

bitter-no-better said:
Rename it. It's so last week.

Tempted, but dont want to tempt fate.

"Everton tell Chelsea to Koff" was my first draft.

Brennan · July 29, 2015

bizzaro said:
Not where there is potential for third party ownership - which if the contract is renegotiable means Chelsea could wield undue influence over the club or player. Thereby questions could be raised over Lukaku's ownership.

Third party ownership is illegal in English football.

Lukaku's transfer isn't like a contract for goods or sale.

It was the transfer of the players registration and once concluded it cannot be renegotiated.

See article 18bis in FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players

Article 18bis Third-party influence on clubs

1. No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract or any third party to acquire the ability to influence in employment and transfer-related matters its independence, its policies or the performance of its teams.

2. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee may impose disciplinary measures on clubs that do not observe the obligations set out in this article.

I like how you're repeatedly dancing around the fact that you don't have a clue what the Lukaku contract payment terms are. Just admit you don't.

ijjysmith · July 29, 2015

Chelsea have played this bad.

If they really really wanted him they should have just bid something utterly mental for him. It's not like they're hard up for cash and they no we wouldn't turn down something really daft.

By bidding these low amounts they've pretty much lost any chance they ever had of getting him.