John Stones transfer saga

[Groucho]

That in mind, Martinez did say that he was "affected" by the "speculation", so there's always the chance that he did consider, or even ask for the move.

I suppose we'll not know for sure, but even if that's true, he's had plenty of time to hand a request in and hasn't done.

 

[fozzy]

Want happen I know but I'm bored.

Would you swap stones for Rooney + £5m if utd came in for him?

 

[BlueToff]

That in mind, Martinez did say that he was "affected" by the "speculation", so there's always the chance that he did consider, or even ask for the move.

I took that as more that Stones had been affected about it in prep for the season - e.g Utd's reasoning for benching De Gea (though De Gea himself has said that was garbage). Didnt think RM meant that Stones had indicated he wanted a move.

 

[Woolly Blue]

My gut feeling is we won't be spending much money ourselves unless Stones goes.

What a terrible fix to be in.

We'll make signings.

There may well be some thinking along the lines of "we'll hang fire unless Chelsea make a crazy offer", in which case our targets change, but regardless of the Stones situation, we'll make signings

 

[sageyefc]

Want happen I know but I'm bored.

Would you swap stones for Rooney + £5m if utd came in for him?

No

 

[LinekersLegs]

Of course, that's fair. But a good way to go about this is to ask a fan of the club how much they would pay for their best English player.

Ask a Chelsea fan how much they'd pay for a twenty year old Terry, or a twenty year old Lampard. Ask a RS how much they'd pay for a twenty year old Gerrard. Ask a United fan, or even yourself, how much you'd pay for Rooney if you could redo his transfer, knowing how good he's become.

I'd certainly say £50m would have been a fair price for Rooney, considering the player he is. Apply that principle to Stones. Yes, he's not the finished article, but if he keeps on, he's going to be the next Terry/Ferdinand and he's going to be vital to whatever club he is at (be it us or not us) for over ten years.

I agree mate - at this particular moment in time would take a ridiculous fee for me to want to sell him. But despite that, part of me can still undertand that the transfer fees being discussed are mental for a 21 year old.

 

[ilikecheese]

I suppose we'll not know for sure, but even if that's true, he's had plenty of time to hand a request in and hasn't done.

I would have imagined that the player and the manager would have likely had a sit down about the situation. Talked about the pros and cons.

 

[Groucho]

I would have imagined that the player and the manager would have likely had a sit down about the situation. Talked about the pros and cons.

Aye.

 

[Joey66]

Come on lads, regardless of your views of the commercial aspect of the club, we're all blues and want Stones to stay I'm sure.

Folk will all have different outlook, let's not berate each other for it.

Sorry but 99% of blues are making good points - some are having a go at our Chairman who has left it our Manager, the Chairman is not perfect but recovering from ill health he has not been perfect in past deals etc, but recently has wiser up in the transfer market.

 

[Woolly Blue]

I very much doubt we'd spend all the proceeds of any Stones sale. The other prize though will be that Kenwright will retain what's left of the tv revenue and dispense of it for the boards own benefit.

'Sake Dave.
What sort of benefit ?

 

[toffeestillidie]

Tbf they got Costa for 32m and Fabregas for ~28 last summer and for Arsenal spent ~35m on Alexis Sanchez - when you put it in the context of those then Stones probably seems expensive if you don't watch him regularly.

True, the main difference is Atletico needed to sell, and Barcelona wanted to sell. Fabegras and Sanchez were not guaranteed first team players, and selling them didn't hurt the quality of the squad. Stones is one of the first names on the team sheet, and is at least 4 years younger than any of those other players.

 

[ijjysmith]

We'll make signings.

There may well be some thinking along the lines of "we'll hang fire unless Chelsea make a crazy offer", in which case our targets change, but regardless of the Stones situation, we'll make signings

Oh I think so too.

But my fear is that Stones going or not is the difference between Yarmolenko or Lennon.

 

[Elong]

Sorry but 99% of blues are making good points - some are having a go at our Chairman who has left it our Manager, the Chairman is not perfect but recovering from ill health he has not been perfect in past deals etc, but recently has wiser up in the transfer market.

Please don't use his illness as an excuse to sell Stones.

 

[terraloon]

Of course, that's fair. But a good way to go about this is to ask a fan of the club how much they would pay for their best English player.

Ask a Chelsea fan how much they'd pay for a twenty year old Terry, or a twenty year old Lampard. Ask a RS how much they'd pay for a twenty year old Gerrard. Ask a United fan, or even yourself, how much you'd pay for Rooney if you could redo his transfer, knowing how good he's become.

I'd certainly say £50m would have been a fair price for Rooney, considering the player he is. Apply that principle to Stones. Yes, he's not the finished article, but if he keeps on, he's going to be the next Terry/Ferdinand and he's going to be vital to whatever club he is at (be it us or not us) for over ten years.

The problem is that the players you mention have all turned their potential into numerous seasons at the top and numerous England caps.

Potential has value but for every player that lives up to their potential there are probably another 10 or 20 that haven't

 

[toffeestillidie]

Want happen I know but I'm bored.

Would you swap stones for Rooney + £5m if utd came in for him?

No way, Rooney would make a terrible cb