• Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

John Stones

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thuck ma Baws said:
Bigger profit to be made on Stones I'd have thought.
Click to expand...

Much bigger. We'd have to sell Lukaku for 70m to get the same profit.

Which makes me quite sad. I suspect the club would rather get rid of Lukaku, hence setting the price at 65m and hoping he has a boss euros. Unfortunately I think he's already flopped it and now we're going to have to sell Stones.
 
If it comes down to either Stones or Lukaku having to go to comply with FPP going forward, then I hope it is taxi for Rom.

And his hanger owns.
 
The Esk said:
It's not the earnings that are the issue mate, we have to generate non-broadcasting income to cover the increase in salaries from buying better players. In the absence of a large increase in commercial or sponsorship revenues, that can only be achieved by a trading profit from a player sale. ;)
Click to expand...


Does the reverse logic of this suggest we are stuck with Niasse, even if we wanted to bite the bullet and punt him for half what we paid for him if some mug was willing to match his wages and take him off our hands :(

Such a loss would eat into the bottom line of any profit we made from selling a prized asset.
 
whiteshadow said:
Can't we just set up some dodgy sponsorship deal to bypass the issue. Isn't that what Man City did to get around it?

FFP is a bit of a joke really. They said it was put in to stop clubs from getting in to financial difficulties but in effect it was really brought in to keep the status quo and stop the big clubs being threatened by a team being taken over by a wealthy benefactor.

Everything over the last decade, with 3rd place teams in the Champs league getting put in to the Europa League later stages (which is disgusting and makes the Europa league a joke of a competition), the big teams threatening a breakaway league etc has been put in to protect the big teams commercial revenues and stop other clubs from trying to compete with them.

As we've seen with FIFA, the people running football only care about making tons of money, wether by fair means or not. Ensuring the teams that generate the biggest revenue streams are successful is how they guarantee making the most money which is why they scrapped the one match knockout system of the old Champions League (European Cup) and replaced it with group stages and two legged matches in the knockout stages.
Click to expand...


The FFP issue isn't, in this context , anything to do with UEFA. The issue is about wage growth which the PL clubs themselves voted for.
Evertons historically low wage bill is the problem as I pointed out a few weeks ago the allowable growth is about 10% a season. Or put another Everton can spend about £140 k a week more than in 2015/16
I am not 100% up on the FFP within the PL but think that RM pay off will probably be included in the wage bill although there may be provision to discount it as an exeptional item. irrespective Koeman will be on more than Martinez and whilst I agree with the Esk about the need to increase non broadcasting income the sale of a player will only impact in year one the problem is that in all likelihood the sum that will be reflected in the accounts by way of amortisation will grow as players come in by way of bigger transfer fees, that in turn will see wage expenditure grow so somehow in the year 2017/18 commercial or match day income will have to grow at a pace or another high profile player will have to be sold on to inflate non broadcasting income.
 

CynicalBlue said:
Instead of a player sale which would detract from the squad. How about players sales which would benefit the club, say the loss of Aiden, Conor, Oumar, Arouna and James.
Click to expand...
A much better idea, and one with which I suspect you'll find no-one objecting. The only issue is how much money it would actually raise. I'd be surprised if we raised £5m combined from the sales of McGeady, McAleny and Kone. We'd be lucky to get back what we originally paid for Niasse and McCarthy at the moment too.

If we absolutely HAVE to sell off a big asset then I'm sorry but Stones is the one to go. He is the most replaceable - there are simply more decent quality CBs in the game than there are 20-goals-a-season strikers, so replacing Lukaku would be monstrously difficult.

Ideally however, we don't let either of them, or Barkley, go.
 
Tree13 said:
A much better idea, and one with which I suspect you'll find no-one objecting. The only issue is how much money it would actually raise. I'd be surprised if we raised £5m combined from the sales of McGeady, McAleny and Kone. We'd be lucky to get back what we originally paid for Niasse and McCarthy at the moment too.

If we absolutely HAVE to sell off a big asset then I'm sorry but Stones is the one to go. He is the most replaceable - there are simply more decent quality CBs in the game than there are 20-goals-a-season strikers, so replacing Lukaku would be monstrously difficult.

Ideally however, we don't let either of them, or Barkley, go.
Click to expand...
Barkley will be going nowhere, Stones has to stay imo - you simply don't find ball playing defenders as composed and capable as him every day. This is why Barcelona etc are interested.

Don't get this you can't replace a 20 goal a year striker thing. Yes you can.

Yak was just as good if not a better finisher than Rom, he got injured and it ruined him unfortunately.

Vardy has been banging them in at all levels, and i'm certain other players do the same - you just have to find them.

The rest of the team will score more goals too, if we lost Rom
 
Lukaku's two goals against the Republic will have brought him to the fore again in the minds of "big clubs". More importantly it will have cemented the idea that he is the greatest thing since sliced bread in his on head. Hoe Belgium do over the next two or three matches will impact on our ability to hold on to him. If he scores a couple of goals over the next few games then big money offers will come in for him but more importantly he will agitate for a move to a Champion League club right away. Might just be a perfect storm.
Stones and Barkley on the other hand don't even look like they will get a game, barring injury, so their stock may well fall. Stones may well still attract interest at the highest level but Barkley seems to be going backwards.
I agree with what has been said in earlier posts, Lukaku is the hardest to replace as he is almost a guaranteed source of 20 + goals. However not having a 20 + goal plus centre forward doesn't seem to be an issue for Koeman, his teams seem to share the goals about. Pelle is hardly prolific.
Maybe we hang on to Stones and Barkley and develop them and sell Lukaku for a massive amount. Use the money to bring in a centre forward who can hold the ball up and bring in other players. Spend money on a first class holding midfielder and a points winning keeper, plus two proper wide men.
 

Abraders said:
Barkley will be going nowhere, Stones has to stay imo - you simply don't find ball playing defenders as composed and capable as him every day. This is why Barcelona etc are interested.

Don't get this you can't replace a 20 goal a year striker thing. Yes you can.

Yak was just as good if not a better finisher than Rom, he got injured and it ruined him unfortunately.

Vardy has been banging them in at all levels, and i'm certain other players do the same - you just have to find them.

The rest of the team will score more goals too, if we lost Rom
Click to expand...
Yet the football industry from top to bottom pays more for goalscoring strikers than ball-playing centre backs. How strange.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top