John Stones transfer saga

[Tramps_mate]

All this "we'll sell at £34-35m".

Where's it coming from? We won't sell unless the player puts in a transfer request. Looks simple to me.

He's basically gone...

 

[Big Fat Sam]

All this "we'll sell at £34-35m".

Where's it coming from? We won't sell unless the player puts in a transfer request. Looks simple to me.

There comes a point where the manager will see that, if he is given all of the money to us, it would be better to sell and re-invest.

That goes for any player.

Give us 50m for Lukaku and we'll be a better team for it.

35m for Stones, we'd end up stronger so long as he doesn't spend it on five Kones.

It's a shame the board won't give him 20m to spend without having to sell, but that's how it is under Kenwrong and his gang of cronies.

 

[Rook]

The issues are the same now as they were then: a selling club looking to pay back money.

With the Rooney deal there was the loan repayment hanging over the club; with Stones there's been a decision to pay down debt with the tv revenues so a sell to buy summer in the transfer market is necessary.

It's groundhog day.

Rooney was a bit different. He was throwing a you are not the boss of me now fit and not going to play for us. Basically Stones is "not for sale" as long as the price is wrong and whether or not Stones decides to pull a Rooney/Essien/Lescott. If Stones does decide to walk away or pull a I'm not feeling it routine then we'll be lucky to get 30M. Though he has a 5 year contract its not like Stones doesn't have all the power in this. Probably best case senario if we want to keep him is to give him a raise and promise that we'll find a buyer for you next season the way Soton did with Schinerdelin.

Say 35M or so isn't really a bad deal. Defenders aren't like attacking players you can find them a lot easier than strikers/attackers. We lost a bit attacking wise when Lescott left because he was so effective as a goal scorer but we probably got better defensively with the Milkman.

And speaking of Soton, they jettisoned their D, used the money to buy attackers, their D didn't suffer (and got better) plus they played some sweet footie last year. We desperately need a No.2 striker (unless you are counting on the Kone), a creative mid (unless you want all Osman all the time) and if we can get them players like Besic, will have less pressure to go forward/create, and can be a lot more effective on the pitch.

 

[The Esk]

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.

Mate Everton wholly own Lukaku's registration even if they have not fully paid for it (I'd like to see evidence of the terms...).

I was talking about mutually agreeable changes to those terms, i.e. agreed by both parties - a clause which is common in most commercial comtracts.

 

[Brennan]

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.

Mate Everton wholly own Lukaku's registration even if they have not fully paid for it (I'd like to see evidence of the terms...).

I was talking about mutually agreeable changes to those terms, i.e. agreed by both parties - a clause which is common in most commercial comtracts.

This is like watching Tyson Fury vs Muhammad Ali.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

Then we'd have no transfer money this summer, because he's not going to fetch more than circa £35M.

What's your record for predicting our transfer budget like Dave?

 

[Lacina]

No that's it now....mourinho said all we had to do was say Stones is not for sale, and he'd not mention him again....so its all over....i believe mourinho.....and I believe the media will let this lie now......all over......done and dusted......game over.....definitely the last we'll hear of this.....end of the road......closure at last....

Love that to be the case mate, fingers crossed

 

[blue4eva77]

Last summer was amazing that we spent £28m on a player, if we didn't spend that we would have lost him. It's irrelevant that he was on loan the year before as he wasn't ours and there is only so much money to go around.
Just my oppinion

We spent the money to stay as we were.

 

[davek]

Coming to the same conclusion. We need more of an attacking threat and I just don't think a non-stellar workmanlike defender is going to derail Bobby's system. Get it to McCarthy and away we go. And when Stones played right-back, his limits as a player were shown. I know he's cultured but he's slow and he can't beat a man. Personally, think we should hold at for mid-thirties, sell, and try to get 2-3 players in.

He's got a long way to go Stones. Let another club take the risk of turning him from very good to great. We have more pressing matters.

Needs must I'm afraid.

 

[catcherintherye]

He's got a long way to go Stones. Let another club take the risk of turning him from very good to great. We have more pressing matters.

Needs must I'm afraid.

If we got mid 30's and the club cleared 30 million from it it would be a fantastic deal. We could add Van Dijk & Dragovich for that sort of money as well as having 10 million to put towards a creative midfield player.
We should hold out for a big price for Stones as I think they will pay it. I want to keep Stones too, but if he were to go the club will not implode.

 

[Bazlar]

He's got a long way to go Stones. Let another club take the risk of turning him from very good to great. We have more pressing matters.

Needs must I'm afraid.

But how do you know what needs must. You don't have a clue what our transfer budget is anymore than I do. So why do you advocate selling a player now that is only going to increase in value?

 

[Big Fat Sam]

He's got a long way to go Stones. Let another club take the risk of turning him from very good to great. We have more pressing matters.

Needs must I'm afraid.

This.

 

[Barkley1878]

If we got mid 30's and the club cleared 30 million from it it would be a fantastic deal. We could add Van Dijk & Dragovich for that sort of money as well as having 10 million to put towards a creative midfield player.
We should hold out for a big price for Stones as I think they will pay it. I want to keep Stones too, but if he were to go the club will not implode.

Or how about we keep Stones and have Martinez sort himself out and get the 2 signings in he's stated he's after.

I guarantee he'll have money to spend, people are flapping when the manager has made it clear he wants 2 more in without having to sell, had he said he'll go with what he's got then I would be in meltdown but he hasn't said that. With the TV cash this isn't the same as the Rooney or Moyes era of having to sell im suprised some still can't see that. Granted we are still miles off most clubs spending but they'll be cash there imo.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Alan Shearer

That was pretty recent to be fair, and therefore astonishingly relevant.

 

[bizzaro]

Mate Everton wholly own Lukaku's registration even if they have not fully paid for it (I'd like to see evidence of the terms...).

I was talking about mutually agreeable changes to those terms, i.e. agreed by both parties - a clause which is common in most commercial comtracts.

Yes but wouldn't be allowed in a player registration transfer. Or it could lead to undue influence in the transfer policies of a club like Everton.

Read the Regulation article 18bis again.

"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."

If a club thinks that it could change the contract (Chelsea) to impact the independence of the other club (Everton) this would be a clear breach of the rules (and the law).

This was why this rule was brought in.

Everton are under no pressure to 'mutually agree' any changes in terms.

If they did they could go straight to the FA and if needed FIFA.

You are right on one point. Lukaku's ownership is settled.

Chelsea can't change any contract terms now.