John Stones transfer saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
image.webp
 

LinekersLegs said:
The whole thing has been weird - the initial talking about the low bids, Cahill interview, digs at "small clubs" and Martinez, then the abrupt U turn back to their usual policy of "we don't talk about other teams players". That is what they have done with Baba - they targeted him, chairman said no chance under 20m Euro and so they just upped the bid to 25, all behind the scenes with minimal leaks or fuss.

You'd think with the previous good relations between the clubs, plus Stones not being the type of player to down tools to force a move, that the "buttering up Bill in private by waving lots of money and/or players" strategy that they now seem to be going with would have been the one that made the most sense from the outset.

Hope you are right about this being the end, still a bit nervous myself!
Click to expand...

That says to me that they have no idea if Stones wants to join. Which is a good thing, that he hasn't been contact with them via means less than the appropriate manor. If the knew he would kick up a fuss I'm not so sure they'd of been as aggressive.
 
Ashtonian said:
Not really?

If the price for messi was 300 million lets say and city were willing to pay for it then that doesnt weaken barca. Sure they lose their best player but the money coming back for him makes up for it as they could then spend 70 million a year signing a star player for the team and overall they would be better for it.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense. How does your team improve by removing Messi? Who are they going to sign better than him? There aren't players to buy. They can already buy 70m players.

You have 11 spots to fill (plus a squad of course but even Barca doesn't spend 70m on someone intended to sit on the bench -- nor would someone of that standard be satisfied going to a team where they aren't first choice).

They have some pretty good players in starting positions already. There aren't that many players worth 70m.

You are acting like they spend the 70m in a vacuum. In reality they can only play 11 players at once. The reason the big teams spend huge money on players is you take one position and lock it up with a "10." They already have 8's and 9's all over the pitch -- how do they get better by removing a 10 and signing more 8's and 9's?

Plus they have the money to buy those players anyway! Embargos aside they can go out and spend 70m on a player.

It's not making them better to sell Messi.
 

Telegraph reporting that EFC & Chelsea are having a quiet meeting to "smooth over the mud slinging".

IF I had to stick a finger in the air, I think he'll go & for around £30m with add-ons taking that to £35m so a "British record for a defender" for the media to crow over.
Not a bad return on £3m outlay but I will be desperately sorry to see him go as he's class (But I guess the Barnsley fans thought the same too).
At least we can all have a good jizz over the replacement(s) .....
 

njligernj said:
This doesn't make any sense. How does your team improve by removing Messi? Who are they going to sign better than him? There aren't players to buy. They can already buy 70m players.

You have 11 spots to fill (plus a squad of course but even Barca doesn't spend 70m on someone intended to sit on the bench -- nor would someone of that standard be satisfied going to a team where they aren't first choice).

They have some pretty good players in starting positions already. There aren't that many players worth 70m.

You are acting like they spend the 70m in a vacuum. In reality they can only play 11 players at once. The reason the big teams spend huge money on players is you take one position and lock it up with a "10." They already have 8's and 9's all over the pitch -- how do they get better by removing a 10 and signing more 8's and 9's?

Plus they have the money to buy those players anyway! Embargos aside they can go out and spend 70m on a player.

It's not making them better to sell Messi.
Click to expand...

okay.

We sell stones. sign for arguments sake and sign 3 top players with the money. are we weaker?

or better yet barca sell Messi right now and look to invest the money. They sign stones, a Ronaldo in waiting, a Cristiano Ronaldo in waiting, pogba, De gea.

yes right this minute they are weaker, but in 2 years they are even better than what they are now. so the money would be invested into a better future for them. They lose one top class player who improves a rival but in a couple of years their first 11 is better than anyone else's.

is that not improving?
 
LinekersLegs said:
The whole thing has been weird - the initial talking about the low bids, Cahill interview, digs at "small clubs" and Martinez, then the abrupt U turn back to their usual policy of "we don't talk about other teams players". That is what they have done with Baba - they targeted him, chairman said no chance under 20m Euro and so they just upped the bid to 25, all behind the scenes with minimal leaks or fuss.

You'd think with the previous good relations between the clubs, plus Stones not being the type of player to down tools to force a move, that the "buttering up Bill in private by waving lots of money and/or players" strategy that they now seem to be going with would have been the one that made the most sense from the outset.

Hope you are right about this being the end, still a bit nervous myself!
Click to expand...


I have commented on this a couple of times and still cannot fully understand the logic.
Maybe the agent gave them false hope that Everton would be happy to sell.
Maybe Mourinho believe that players badly want to play for him and will jump at the opportunity to do.
 

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