John Stones transfer saga

[evo1878]

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.

Great potted history of the sky era that mate!

 

[PITA]

But hopefully does have a good rack ? John deserves that

My thoughts exactly.

 

[chazzle_dazzle]

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.

Quite sobering that post to be honest mate...

The worst/best thing about it (depending on which side of the fence you sit on - pro/anti board), is the fact it shows how poorly managed and without a "plan" we have been since we pushed for PL to be formed.

Shame.

 

[Khalekan]

Quite sobering that post to be honest mate...

The worst/best thing about it (depending on which side of the fence you sit on - pro/anti board), is the fact it shows how poorly managed and without a "plan" we have been since we pushed for PL to be formed.

Shame.

Spot on.

It is just shameful

 

[PITA]

That is a shocker!

Is that because, like me, you assumed that The Equaliser was strapped into his chair?

 

[chazzle_dazzle]

Spot on.

It is just shameful

Think anyone who is on the fence who reads that, cant help but realise that we are being led without direction, besides treading water.

The idea that your a "kopite" for sounding your displeasure at something is pathetic, however i dont know how the lads go about gaining more interest and getting numbers up. Numbers is the only thing thats going to change the game and currently there isnt enough.

We have been brainwashed with "plucky everton" for far too long.

Sorry - bit off topic that like.

 

[LostLegend]

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.

Spot on post this and as others have said, also quite depressing to read.

Just imagine where we'd be if we had been able to spend even 50% of what those texans across the park have over the past couple of decades...

 

[LinekersLegs]

@philmcnulty: Stones' performances for Everton this season a real testimony to temperament/maturity - unmoved by speculation & at ease in his surroundings
@suzannewaine: @philmcnulty Great to see Stones doing his talking on the pitch. His attitude has been exemplary #modelpro #classact
@philmcnulty: @suzannewaine Correct. Been a credit to himself & you can see the Everton fans appreciate it.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Seem the Tagaya chap mentioned on TheShedEnd a couple of times, they were suggesting that he was broke Chelsea bids before the rest of the media. If so it is good news....

@AhmedSayedCfc_: According to [@mohd_tagaya] Chelsea decides to terminate negotiations with #efc defender John Stones.

Edit from TheShedEnd - "The source is the same guy who on Twitter called the Pedro deal before anyone. He also claims that Pogba is 90% done. Apparently this guy is the Oracle."

 

[Noble Savage]

From Sky Sports

Regarding any potential arrivals at Stamford Bridge, we are still waiting to see if Chelsea will go back in with a fourth bid for Everton defender John Stones by the way folks, but we will keep you updated on any movement with this deal...

They really are determined .

 

[oldblue]

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.

spot on and in a nutshell Sky have no bias with regards to the history or legacy of any team they just follow the money and success. The only hope now is that the people controlling the money eventually realise that the more football becomes about false competition the more fans will turn away from the game. Hopefully anyway as I fear this is now a closed shop.

 

[anton66]

From Sky Sports

Regarding any potential arrivals at Stamford Bridge, we are still waiting to see if Chelsea will go back in with a fourth bid for Everton defender John Stones by the way folks, but we will keep you updated on any movement with this deal...

They really are determined .

Chelsea or Sky ?

 

[Bally8]

Playing devils advocate here but what is the point of us holding onto Stones and our top players if we aren't going to improve the team to go for top 4/Europe?

Are we not just delaying the inevitable by a season at most?

 

[bol-uk]

The negatives WANT to believe he has handed in a TR - there is ZERO evidence or reason to think he has.

 

[wbn61]

spot on and in a nutshell Sky have no bias with regards to the history or legacy of any team they just follow the money and success. The only hope now is that the people controlling the money eventually realise that the more football becomes about false competition the more fans will turn away from the game. Hopefully anyway as I fear this is now a closed shop.

the thing is fans won't turn away. even as disillusioned as I am with the whole premise and going to watch everton I will still continue going. my brother and a few friends still continue watching Wrexham even tho in conference. (well not my brother now sorry) and they do the usual watching big games on tv. I have no real interest in golf, tennis, nfl, etc but I watch the promoted big events and that's the way it will be.