John Stones

[The Esk]

If Barcelona wanted Stones but believed him to not be ready they might well be happy for him to stay at Everton anyway at least another year, given for example the positive effect we have had on Deulofeu's development and career progression.

They (Barcelona) obviously have a good relationship with Martinez, he is well respected and liked there. Not beyond the bounds of possibility that they will believe Stones would develop quicker with Martinez and playing week in week out in the PL than being a fringe player at Barcelona.

 

[royalbalou]

Getting money for Stones will not improve us...no matter what the amount. There's a reason that the buyer will pay so much...he's the best player in that position available

 

[bluestevon]

If Barcelona wanted Stones but believed him to not be ready they might well be happy for him to stay at Everton anyway at least another year, given for example the positive effect we have had on Deulofeu's development and career progression.

They (Barcelona) obviously have a good relationship with Martinez, he is well respected and liked there. Not beyond the bounds of possibility that they will believe Stones would develop quicker with Martinez and playing week in week out in the PL than being a fringe player at Barcelona.

Mate, a club won't pay upwards of 40-50m quid and then loan the player back to us, they pay that much the fans/media pressure will demand to see the player starting for them. During the ban they didn't even loan back the players they bought and just had them training unable to actually play for the team.

 

[ArtetaMagic]

Happily sell him to Barca for 40m plus a fringe player. Use that money to get a hard as nails, six foot four centre back in, a good goalkeeper and a second striker - we'd be a miles, miles better team for it!

PS isn't Ter Stegen on his way out of Barca as he can't get a game? Him and 30m would be unreal.

Selling our most valuable player and strengthening the squad. Worked out well for Spurs and the kopites so I'm in. Oh wait....
Potentially having one of the best players in the world for their position is better than having 3 bang average squad players, which is what you will end up with

 

[bluestevon]

Getting money for Stones will not improve us...no matter what the amount. There's a reason that the buyer will pay so much...he's the best player in that position available

I don't want to see us sell Stones, but that is not true mate, it's just hyperbole.

IF we sold Stones for example for 50m and bought 3 players - a starting cb, a starting lw and a backup striker for 15-20m each and each one worked out then as a team we could be distinctly better than we currently are. Would that happen - who knows, but to state that we could not be improved no matter what by obtaining any amount of money is frankly silly talk.

 

[The Esk]

Mate, a club won't pay upwards of 40-50m quid and then loan the player back to us, they pay that much the fans/media pressure will demand to see the player starting for them. During the ban they didn't even loan back the players they bought and just had them training unable to actually play for the team.

I'm not suggesting that they do that, I'm saying there can be an understanding that he might move at some point in the future and until he does they are happy for him to develop under Martinez as the rate of development will be greater as a fundamental part of a developing Everton team than a fringe player at Barcelona.

That's how I would present matters to Stones and his team should they be considering a move - of which currently there is no evidence at all.

 

[bluestevon]

Selling our most valuable player and strengthening the squad. Worked out well for Spurs and the kopites so I'm in. Oh wait....
Potentially having one of the best players in the world for their position is better than having 3 bang average squad players, which is what you will end up with

BIG difference, comparing a ball playing centre half to a player scoring 30-35 goals and single handedly almost carrying a team to top 4/the title is daft, also the assumption is say we got 50m wed buy three crap players ala spurs and the rs, why is that exactly whenever Martinez has spent money its been spent well, whose to say we wont get a Lukaku, Arteta and Jagielka (younger versions) for that 50m?

 

[bluestevon]

I'm not suggesting that they do that, I'm saying there can be an understanding that he might move at some point in the future and until he does they are happy for him to develop under Martinez as the rate of development will be greater as a fundamental part of a developing Everton team than a fringe player at Barcelona.

That's how I would present matters to Stones and his team should they be considering a move - of which currently there is no evidence at all.

fair enough point mate, i just hope we keep a hold of him, would like to see any money spent this time around coming from the money the club gets in through tv and other sources rather than masking it by a player sale whilst that disappears.

Real question should be - why should we sell stones when the money we got from a sale would just mean the owners would cut the transfer budget they provide accordingly and use that instead

 

[royalbalou]

I don't want to see us sell Stones, but that is not true mate, it's just hyperbole.

IF we sold Stones for example for 50m and bought 3 players - a starting cb, a starting lw and a backup striker for 15-20m each and each one worked out then as a team we could be distinctly better than we currently are. Would that happen - who knows, but to state that we could not be improved no matter what by obtaining any amount of money is frankly silly talk.

Disagree...totally depends on who you buy and how they turn out. History would indicate that teams that keep their best players get weaker

Did the RS improve when they sold Suarez? Tottenham when they sold Bale or United when they sold Ronaldo? Answer...no

 

[bluestevon]

Disagree...totally depends on who you buy and how they turn out. History would indicate that teams that keep their best players get weaker

Did the RS improve when they sold Suarez? Tottenham when they sold Bale or United when they sold Ronaldo? Answer...no

Must have missed the 30+ goals that Stones scores like those 3 mate, absolutely ridiculous to compare losing a very talented young cb to losing 3 of the top 10 goalscorers and match winners in the world

 

[AndyGray]

fair enough point mate, i just hope we keep a hold of him, would like to see any money spent this time around coming from the money the club gets in through tv and other sources rather than masking it by a player sale whilst that disappears.

Real question should be - why should we sell stones when the money we got from a sale would just mean the owners would cut the transfer budget they provide accordingly and use that instead

You make it sound like the supporters have a say in this?

 

[ArtetaMagic]

BIG difference, comparing a ball playing centre half to a player scoring 30-35 goals and single handedly almost carrying a team to top 4/the title is daft, also the assumption is say we got 50m wed buy three crap players ala spurs and the rs, why is that exactly whenever Martinez has spent money its been spent well, whose to say we wont get a Lukaku, Arteta and Jagielka (younger versions) for that 50m?

Who can say we'd get 3 quality signings like that, 1 of which martinez signed. Kone, mcgeady etc. Plus a big chunk would need to go on a keeper. Could we sign a 20 million striker happy to play 2nd fiddle to lukaku? Who knows. I like martinez and I reckon he'd rather keep stones and build around him.

 

[MACCA75]

Disagree...totally depends on who you buy and how they turn out. History would indicate that teams that keep their best players get weaker

Did the RS improve when they sold Suarez? Tottenham when they sold Bale or United when they sold Ronaldo? Answer...no

But those players were absolutely vital to that team. Is Stones that?

 

[royalbalou]

But those players were absolutely vital to that team. Is Stones that?

He is an important part of a team that our manager is trying to build. Put simply, if we play a weaker player in any position...the team becomes weaker. Stones may not be vital right now...but can you imagine Everton being as strong in the 80's without Ratcliffe? When he started out he wasn't 'vital' either

 

[MartSlinger]

But those players were absolutely vital to that team. Is Stones that?

Lukaku is more vital for me.

Dont get me wrong, Stones is brilliant and i dont want to lose him, but it'll be easier to replace him rather than Lukaku.