John Stones transfer saga

[blueblue]

With every hour that passes the chances of a sale diminish.
I think that finally the media are beginning to realise that no means no.
I hope that Chelsea also realise this, I would not be surprised if there is no further bid in the absence of a John Stones transfer request.
I think the manager has told John Stones he won't be sold in any event and John Stones is happy with this or has realised there is no point in looking for a move.

John Stones will play just about every game for Everton , when fit, in spite of the result yesterday I think the club will have a good season and we still have our new players to come into the squad. There is no need for him to rush away.
I am sure talks have already started about an upgrade on his contract.

 

[rochdaleblue]

If we sell him now, regardless of the fee, regardless of the circumstances, then I can honestly say a significant part of my love for the club will leave with him.

It's not about money, it's not about Stones, it's about having a bit of pride and dignity. It's about our fans having some belief in the club. I'd rather sit at the top table with an empty bowl than beg for crumbs on the floor from the likes of Chelsea.
This is Everton football club ffs.

When the premier league was set up and sky got the tv deal there slogan was at the time "football..but not as you know it".
Well they are certainly right. Clubs with history and tradition (villa, everton) where treated with contempt as all sky was interested in was their beloved top 4. All players from other clubs other than Liverpool, arsenal, united and Chelsea were considered feeder clubs for them.
In the 80s the England team was made up of players from about 7 or 8 clubs. Not now, any English talent 'has to move to one of these clubs to further their career'.
This summer w have seen delph, clyne, leave to further their careers. John stones has broken into the England team playing for plucky little everton, he is playing week in week out and is supported fully by a fan base that acknowledges he will make the off mistake, but also sees the vast potential the lad has. The new tv deal has allowed clubs such as everton to develop their own talent stones, Barkley, garbutt, without the need to sell them. I agree with you fully, even in these circumstances if stones is sold it really makes you feel what is the point? We can't compete by buying 'Star players' as we haven't got the finance, so the alternative is to develop are own. If now players we develop are going to be sold, how on earth are we ever going to compete????

 

[Raino85]

Everton insist defender is not for sale despite Chelsea interest

Told you, they are all backtracking and beginning to run with the "we stand firm story" so when the window shuts they can say.......look we were right when we said he would stay

 

[Woolly Blue]

....it didn't impact his performance, he was very good. He does look a little dour and my son noticed he appeared to be giving some team mates a rollicking. Who knows what's going on.

It's bound to affect him a bit. I'm sure he'll be glad when the window's closed although I'd guess people are just watching him more closely than they normally would.

He was happy as Larry last week when we were winning though

 

[Coffee and TV]

laugh all you want and bury your head in the sand. He has been asked twice about a TR, 2 answers along the lines of "not aware of..." and refusing to comment. You cant blame anyone for siding with the opinion that he has infact handed one in. Not one flat out denial

Martinez didn't say anything about "not being aware" of a transfer request, he got asked "are you aware of a transfer request from John Stones" and Martinez said "not at all, no." The papers then spun that to make it look like he'd said he wasn't aware of one.

 

[Khalekan]

When the premier league was set up and sky got the tv deal there slogan was at the time "football..but not as you know it".
Well they are certainly right. Clubs with history and tradition (villa, everton) where treated with contempt as all sky was interested in was their beloved top 4. All players from other clubs other than Liverpool, arsenal, united and Chelsea were considered feeder clubs for them.

Have to disagree with this assessment in a generally excellent post, Roch.

When Sky set up there was no such thing as a "top four" in the sense that a top four slot is the holy grail it is now.

The nascent Champions League was confined the top two in the major leagues and stayed that way for a good few years.

Chelsea were nobody's idea of a glamour club at that time.

Blackburn were the new media darlings, with their SAS strike force winning them the Title in the early Sky years.

We had won more league championships than Manchester United.....Arsenal were in the dour "1-0 to the Arsenal" personna and none but their own fans would switch on the TV to watch George Graham's Gunners.

The RS had started their long decline which has seen them go a quarter of a century without winning the Title.

And as for Manchester City.

Manchester Who?

The early 90s was football's equivalent of thr Klondyke.

The Champions League......the Premier League.....Sky's money.

It was a massive trough and all were welcome to stick their snouts in and become glamourised by it.

Blackburn Rovers stuck their snouts in for a while.

Then the Barcodes under Keegan became the Sky darlings.

Leeds United stepped up around the turn of the century.

But who was left behind as the traditional powerhouses like United, Arsenal and the RS cemented themselves in the Sky hegemony?

Everton.....of course, Everton.

The whole of Sky's riches were there for Everton to plunder as well as the other members of what was known in the 80s as the "Big Five".

But alas, whilst Chelsea had the firward thinking Matthew Harding to guide them to the Promisec Land, we were lumbered with Peter flippin' Johnson,

While United had Ferguson and Arsenal hired Wenger, we entered an era where Walker and Smith plus a past his sell by date Kendall (twice) overseen our decline on the pitch.

And the only manager we had in the 90s with the wit to make us successful again was allowed to leave because Johnson wouldn't back him over the purchase of a player who became a major figure in Chelsea's rise in the late 90s,

You are completely right about Sky loving the idea of a "Top Four"......but it was open to all at that time.....the places were there for the taking as Chelsea more than proved.

And which Manchester City have proved in spades this past five or six years.

At the end of the 90s they had fallen into the third tier.

Which all goes to show Sky don't pick the teams which make up the "top four",

A team just has to batter the door down and grab a place.

And it is to EFC's eternal shame we stood on the platform as the Sky gravy train left the station.

 

[blue61]

Have to disagree with this assessment in a generally excellent post, Roch.

When Sky set up there was no such thing as a "top four" in the sense that a top four slot is the holy grail it is now.

The nascent Champions League was confined the top two in the major leagues and stayed that way for a good few years.

Chelsea were nobody's idea of a glamour club at that time.

Blackburn were the new media darlings, with their SAS strike force winning them the Title in the early Sky years.

We had won more league championships than Manchester United.....Arsenal were in the dour "1-0 to the Arsenal" personna and none but their own fans would switch on the TV to watch George Graham's Gunners.

The RS had started their long decline which has seen them go a quarter of a century without winning the Title.

And as for Manchester City.

Manchester Who?

The early 90s was football's equivalent of thr Klondyke.

The Champions League......the Premier League.....Sky's money.

It was a massive trough and all were welcome to stick their snouts in and become glamourised by it.

Blackburn Rovers stuck their snouts in for a while.

Then the Barcodes under Keegan became the Sky darlings.

Leeds United stepped up around the turn of the century.

But who was left behind as the traditional powerhouses like United, Arsenal and the RS cemented themselves in the Sky hegemony?

Everton.....of course, Everton.

The whole of Sky's riches were there for Everton to plunder as well as the other members of what was known in the 80s as the "Big Five".

But alas, whilst Chelsea had the firward thinking Matthew Harding to guide them to the Promisec Land, we were lumbered with Peter flippin' Johnson,

While United had Ferguson and Arsenal hired Wenger, we entered an era where Walker and Smith plus a past his sell by date Kendall (twice) overseen our decline on the pitch.

And the only manager we had in the 90s with the wit to make us successful again was allowed to leave because Johnson wouldn't back him over the purchase of a player who became a major figure in Chelsea's rise in the late 90s,

You are completely right about Sky loving the idea of a "Top Four"......but it was open to all at that time.....the places were there for the taking as Chelsea more than proved.

And which Manchester City have proved in spades this past five or six years.

At the end of the 90s they had fallen into the third tier.

Which all goes to show Sky don't pick the teams which make up the "top four",

A team just has to batter the door down and grab a place.

And it is to EFC's eternal shame we stood on the platform as the Sky gravy train left the station.

Excellent post, Everton were in fact one of the 'big five' who helped push for the formation of the premier league. The fact we haven't prospered is nothing to do with 'sky favouritism' and all to do with inept strategies.

 

[AndyC]

Have to disagree with this assessment in a generally excellent post, Roch.

When Sky set up there was no such thing as a "top four" in the sense that a top four slot is the holy grail it is now.

The nascent Champions League was confined the top two in the major leagues and stayed that way for a good few years.

Chelsea were nobody's idea of a glamour club at that time.

Blackburn were the new media darlings, with their SAS strike force winning them the Title in the early Sky years.

We had won more league championships than Manchester United.....Arsenal were in the dour "1-0 to the Arsenal" personna and none but their own fans would switch on the TV to watch George Graham's Gunners.

The RS had started their long decline which has seen them go a quarter of a century without winning the Title.

And as for Manchester City.

Manchester Who?

The early 90s was football's equivalent of thr Klondyke.

The Champions League......the Premier League.....Sky's money.

It was a massive trough and all were welcome to stick their snouts in and become glamourised by it.

Blackburn Rovers stuck their snouts in for a while.

Then the Barcodes under Keegan became the Sky darlings.

Leeds United stepped up around the turn of the century.

But who was left behind as the traditional powerhouses like United, Arsenal and the RS cemented themselves in the Sky hegemony?

Everton.....of course, Everton.

The whole of Sky's riches were there for Everton to plunder as well as the other members of what was known in the 80s as the "Big Five".

But alas, whilst Chelsea had the firward thinking Matthew Harding to guide them to the Promisec Land, we were lumbered with Peter flippin' Johnson,

While United had Ferguson and Arsenal hired Wenger, we entered an era where Walker and Smith plus a past his sell by date Kendall (twice) overseen our decline on the pitch.

And the only manager we had in the 90s with the wit to make us successful again was allowed to leave because Johnson wouldn't back him over the purchase of a player who became a major figure in Chelsea's rise in the late 90s,

You are completely right about Sky loving the idea of a "Top Four"......but it was open to all at that time.....the places were there for the taking as Chelsea more than proved.

And which Manchester City have proved in spades this past five or six years.

At the end of the 90s they had fallen into the third tier.

Which all goes to show Sky don't pick the teams which make up the "top four",

A team just has to batter the door down and grab a place.

And it is to EFC's eternal shame we stood on the platform as the Sky gravy train left the station.

A quite superb if ultimately sad and somewhat depressing posting from an Everton point of view.

Back in the day, we were the "Mersey Millionaires" but we never quite got on board with the world domination mantra that prevails today.

Part of me yearns for some mega rich Evertonian sheikh or oligarch to come to our rescue, but I fear such an entity is purely in my dreams.

 

[BoysInBlue]

Excellent post by @Khalekan

Just to add to it that EFC as a club completely wasted the first 2 years of the Sky era (1992 to 1994) due to Boardroom inertia, as the club was in limbo because majority shareholder Sir John Moores was slowly dying due to suffering from Dementia, and his family didn't have anyone willing to take over his shareholding, nor were they willing to sell his shareholding whilst he was still alive. It was a deeply unfortunate personal situation that unfortunately crippled the club.

Very little money was spent. Kendall was denied transfer funds to buy Dion Dublin & quit in December 1993 with us in mid-table. The new Park End was built during this era, but again, the penny pinching Moores family (understandable to a degree due to the limbo situation) would only agree to fund a single tier, instead of a more lucrative two tiered stand that would have given us a near 50000 capacity. During the same era, the Hall family at Newcastle went in a different direction, invested in their ground and reaped the benefits.

By the time Johnson came in we were already playing catchup. Johnson was conscious of this, and in his desperation, borrowed money to push EFC forward, money that wasn't his own and beyond our means of paying back at the time. Kenwright came in and stabilised things to a degree, but he had even less money than Johnson, which led to the all the assets being sold out and significant debt being racked up.

I suppose the link to John Stones in all of this is that the mentality of selling our best players all stems from the inertia in 1992-94.

 

[kithnou]

Have to disagree with this assessment in a generally excellent post, Roch.

When Sky set up there was no such thing as a "top four" in the sense that a top four slot is the holy grail it is now.

The nascent Champions League was confined the top two in the major leagues and stayed that way for a good few years.

Chelsea were nobody's idea of a glamour club at that time.

Blackburn were the new media darlings, with their SAS strike force winning them the Title in the early Sky years.

We had won more league championships than Manchester United.....Arsenal were in the dour "1-0 to the Arsenal" personna and none but their own fans would switch on the TV to watch George Graham's Gunners.

The RS had started their long decline which has seen them go a quarter of a century without winning the Title.

And as for Manchester City.

Manchester Who?

The early 90s was football's equivalent of thr Klondyke.

The Champions League......the Premier League.....Sky's money.

It was a massive trough and all were welcome to stick their snouts in and become glamourised by it.

Blackburn Rovers stuck their snouts in for a while.

Then the Barcodes under Keegan became the Sky darlings.

Leeds United stepped up around the turn of the century.

But who was left behind as the traditional powerhouses like United, Arsenal and the RS cemented themselves in the Sky hegemony?

Everton.....of course, Everton.

The whole of Sky's riches were there for Everton to plunder as well as the other members of what was known in the 80s as the "Big Five".

But alas, whilst Chelsea had the firward thinking Matthew Harding to guide them to the Promisec Land, we were lumbered with Peter flippin' Johnson,

While United had Ferguson and Arsenal hired Wenger, we entered an era where Walker and Smith plus a past his sell by date Kendall (twice) overseen our decline on the pitch.

And the only manager we had in the 90s with the wit to make us successful again was allowed to leave because Johnson wouldn't back him over the purchase of a player who became a major figure in Chelsea's rise in the late 90s,

You are completely right about Sky loving the idea of a "Top Four"......but it was open to all at that time.....the places were there for the taking as Chelsea more than proved.

And which Manchester City have proved in spades this past five or six years.

At the end of the 90s they had fallen into the third tier.

Which all goes to show Sky don't pick the teams which make up the "top four",

A team just has to batter the door down and grab a place.

And it is to EFC's eternal shame we stood on the platform as the Sky gravy train left the station.

Some post there. Well written my man.

 

[deipnosophist]

Have to disagree with this assessment in a generally excellent post, Roch.

When Sky set up there was no such thing as a "top four" in the sense that a top four slot is the holy grail it is now.

The nascent Champions League was confined the top two in the major leagues and stayed that way for a good few years.

Chelsea were nobody's idea of a glamour club at that time.

Blackburn were the new media darlings, with their SAS strike force winning them the Title in the early Sky years.

We had won more league championships than Manchester United.....Arsenal were in the dour "1-0 to the Arsenal" personna and none but their own fans would switch on the TV to watch George Graham's Gunners.

The RS had started their long decline which has seen them go a quarter of a century without winning the Title.

And as for Manchester City.

Manchester Who?

The early 90s was football's equivalent of thr Klondyke.

The Champions League......the Premier League.....Sky's money.

It was a massive trough and all were welcome to stick their snouts in and become glamourised by it.

Blackburn Rovers stuck their snouts in for a while.

Then the Barcodes under Keegan became the Sky darlings.

Leeds United stepped up around the turn of the century.

But who was left behind as the traditional powerhouses like United, Arsenal and the RS cemented themselves in the Sky hegemony?

Everton.....of course, Everton.

The whole of Sky's riches were there for Everton to plunder as well as the other members of what was known in the 80s as the "Big Five".

But alas, whilst Chelsea had the firward thinking Matthew Harding to guide them to the Promisec Land, we were lumbered with Peter flippin' Johnson,

While United had Ferguson and Arsenal hired Wenger, we entered an era where Walker and Smith plus a past his sell by date Kendall (twice) overseen our decline on the pitch.

And the only manager we had in the 90s with the wit to make us successful again was allowed to leave because Johnson wouldn't back him over the purchase of a player who became a major figure in Chelsea's rise in the late 90s,

You are completely right about Sky loving the idea of a "Top Four"......but it was open to all at that time.....the places were there for the taking as Chelsea more than proved.

And which Manchester City have proved in spades this past five or six years.

At the end of the 90s they had fallen into the third tier.

Which all goes to show Sky don't pick the teams which make up the "top four",

A team just has to batter the door down and grab a place.

And it is to EFC's eternal shame we stood on the platform as the Sky gravy train left the station.

Excellent short history lesson...kudos

 

[mythbuster]

Have to disagree with this assessment in a generally excellent post, Roch.

When Sky set up there was no such thing as a "top four" in the sense that a top four slot is the holy grail it is now.

The nascent Champions League was confined the top two in the major leagues and stayed that way for a good few years.

Chelsea were nobody's idea of a glamour club at that time.

Blackburn were the new media darlings, with their SAS strike force winning them the Title in the early Sky years.

We had won more league championships than Manchester United.....Arsenal were in the dour "1-0 to the Arsenal" personna and none but their own fans would switch on the TV to watch George Graham's Gunners.

The RS had started their long decline which has seen them go a quarter of a century without winning the Title.

And as for Manchester City.

Manchester Who?

The early 90s was football's equivalent of thr Klondyke.

The Champions League......the Premier League.....Sky's money.

It was a massive trough and all were welcome to stick their snouts in and become glamourised by it.

Blackburn Rovers stuck their snouts in for a while.

Then the Barcodes under Keegan became the Sky darlings.

Leeds United stepped up around the turn of the century.

But who was left behind as the traditional powerhouses like United, Arsenal and the RS cemented themselves in the Sky hegemony?

Everton.....of course, Everton.

The whole of Sky's riches were there for Everton to plunder as well as the other members of what was known in the 80s as the "Big Five".

But alas, whilst Chelsea had the firward thinking Matthew Harding to guide them to the Promisec Land, we were lumbered with Peter flippin' Johnson,

While United had Ferguson and Arsenal hired Wenger, we entered an era where Walker and Smith plus a past his sell by date Kendall (twice) overseen our decline on the pitch.

And the only manager we had in the 90s with the wit to make us successful again was allowed to leave because Johnson wouldn't back him over the purchase of a player who became a major figure in Chelsea's rise in the late 90s,

You are completely right about Sky loving the idea of a "Top Four"......but it was open to all at that time.....the places were there for the taking as Chelsea more than proved.

And which Manchester City have proved in spades this past five or six years.

At the end of the 90s they had fallen into the third tier.

Which all goes to show Sky don't pick the teams which make up the "top four",

A team just has to batter the door down and grab a place.

And it is to EFC's eternal shame we stood on the platform as the Sky gravy train left the station.

IMO, the Champions League is the worst thing that's ever happened in terms of the 'competitive' environment it's created

 

[terraloon]

Have to disagree with this assessment in a generally excellent post, Roch.

When Sky set up there was no such thing as a "top four" in the sense that a top four slot is the holy grail it is now.

The nascent Champions League was confined the top two in the major leagues and stayed that way for a good few years.

Chelsea were nobody's idea of a glamour club at that time.

Blackburn were the new media darlings, with their SAS strike force winning them the Title in the early Sky years.

We had won more league championships than Manchester United.....Arsenal were in the dour "1-0 to the Arsenal" personna and none but their own fans would switch on the TV to watch George Graham's Gunners.

The RS had started their long decline which has seen them go a quarter of a century without winning the Title.

And as for Manchester City.

Manchester Who?

The early 90s was football's equivalent of thr Klondyke.

The Champions League......the Premier League.....Sky's money.

It was a massive trough and all were welcome to stick their snouts in and become glamourised by it.

Blackburn Rovers stuck their snouts in for a while.

Then the Barcodes under Keegan became the Sky darlings.

Leeds United stepped up around the turn of the century.

But who was left behind as the traditional powerhouses like United, Arsenal and the RS cemented themselves in the Sky hegemony?

Everton.....of course, Everton.

The whole of Sky's riches were there for Everton to plunder as well as the other members of what was known in the 80s as the "Big Five".

But alas, whilst Chelsea had the firward thinking Matthew Harding to guide them to the Promisec Land, we were lumbered with Peter flippin' Johnson,

While United had Ferguson and Arsenal hired Wenger, we entered an era where Walker and Smith plus a past his sell by date Kendall (twice) overseen our decline on the pitch.

And the only manager we had in the 90s with the wit to make us successful again was allowed to leave because Johnson wouldn't back him over the purchase of a player who became a major figure in Chelsea's rise in the late 90s,

You are completely right about Sky loving the idea of a "Top Four"......but it was open to all at that time.....the places were there for the taking as Chelsea more than proved.

And which Manchester City have proved in spades this past five or six years.

At the end of the 90s they had fallen into the third tier.

Which all goes to show Sky don't pick the teams which make up the "top four",

A team just has to batter the door down and grab a place.

And it is to EFC's eternal shame we stood on the platform as the Sky gravy train left the station.

Absolutely top top post

People all too often look at the here and now and want to blame their woes on everyone else rather than take a long hard look in the mirror

Everton have a long and proud history of success alas it was forged prior to the formation of the PL. Other clubs, as has been pointed out have developed their business and revenue streams to take advantage of all the opportunities that the global exposure of the PL offered up.

Liverpool as a City has iconic status but it's not a financial hub and whilst those associated with Everton will argue otherwise, the club itself isn't an attractive proposition to non British players and as we have all seen there aren't a whole queue of rich investors lining up to take the club forward

For me the issue is that there really isn't any plan b.

Everything it seems dependeds on the TV money at Everton.

Gate receipts at Everton are average to poor, commercial income is an embarrassment meaning that far from moving forward the very best that Everton can hope for is to stand still the dilemma is that all PL clubs are in receipt of the vast TV income and somehow those other clubs seem to have the ability to compete far more aggressively in the transfer market

I may be wrong but a quick glance at commercial income declared last season by each of the top four clubs in just one year probably is more than Everton have in received in total during its existence

At some point there is going to be a crossroads. A point where a series of injuries, suspensions, loss of form all come at the same time and the lack of depth in the squad will be cruelly exposed

It's not all doom and gloom , of course it's not, but some post on here and talk about the riches that Sky money grants but it doesn't offer up an advantage to get you out of the chasing pack and players through their agents will always be looking for more

 

[Khalekan]

I suppose the link to John Stones in all of this is that the mentality of selling our best players all stems from the inertia in 1992-94.

Indeed.

And even in tha era we were going to Chelsea and taking their players.

Graham Stuart was signed from them.

And a few years before that Pat Nevin came to Everton in the hope of "bigger and better things" after Chelsea were relegated in 1988.

It really is heartbreaking how the inertia you mention set in motion a decline which has seen a club literally not even in our league as the 1980s ended come to regard us something to be scraped off the bottom of its shoe as they use dark forces in Fleet Street to take players from us.

 

[evo1878]

Excellent post, Everton were in fact one of the 'big five' who helped push for the formation of the premier league. The fact we haven't prospered is nothing to do with 'sky favouritism' and all to do with inept strategies.

And also a lot to do with not introducing fresh capital, getting of your backside to grow your commercial operations, and investing in your own infrastructure to supplement the wealth that Sky provided instead of relying on the sky money like its a welfare benefit.