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

John Stones

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tree13 said:
Have I misunderstood you? Are you suggesting that Stones would command a bigger transfer fee than Lukaku?
Click to expand...

If he is he is wrong, no chance of Stones going for the type of money Lukaku can, not even close, strikers are always in demand because they are so hard to find.

Rom cost a lot more so we might not make as much profit if we are stupid enough to let him go, but don't forget we have to give a slice to Barnsley when we sell Stones.
 
hetion said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very much back of a fag packet calculation but selling RL for say £60 million would in accounting terms show a profit of £ £42million for his amortised value will be about £18 million. The trouble is that from that £60 million , just like all transfers, a set sum will go the the FA, the player will get a chunk as will the agent so the profit Would be in the range £30-£35 millions

Stones cost £3 million so he has a amortised book value of around £1.5 million so if he were sold for say £50 million the sale on of 15% payable to Barnsley would spookily enough come very close to the £42 million. If Stones has withdrawn his transfer request he would be entitled to a chunk of that transfer along with the FA, agents etc but due to Stones age another set %of the fee is payable to what's called his training club (Barnsley)meaning the profit based on these sums would in all probability be significantly less more in the £25-£30 million range
 
Last edited:
Tree13 said:
Have I misunderstood you? Are you suggesting that Stones would command a bigger transfer fee than Lukaku?
Click to expand...
No, but we have turned down 40m for stones and if he fulfils his potential under koeman he could be worth more imo - and finding another striker would be easier than a cb like stones
 
Abraders said:
No, but we have turned down 40m for stones and if he fulfils his potential under koeman he could be worth more imo - and finding another striker would be easier than a cb like stones
Click to expand...

If finding a striker is easy how come Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool, all sides with money to waste, didn't have one last season that could score more goals then the one we had in a awful side?
 

4737carlin said:
If finding a striker is easy how come Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool, all sides with money to waste, didn't have one last season that could score more goals then the one we had in a awful side?
Click to expand...
So many different reasons, transitions in managers, dreadful tactics on man United half under lvg etc
 
Abraders said:
So many different reasons, transitions in managers, dreadful tactics on man United half under lvg etc
Click to expand...

Could be but more likely because clubs who have them no how valuable and rare they are and tend to keep them unless they are weak and stupid.

Look at Liverpool and Suarez? Who did they get? and they have money and pull, Balotelli and Rickie Lambert? You really think we can replace Lukaku with someone who can score as many gaols? Not a chance.

Stones can be replaced, Lukaku is a one off.
 
4737carlin said:
Could be but more likely because clubs who have them no how valuable and rare they are and tend to keep them unless they are weak and stupid.

Look at Liverpool and Suarez? Who did they get? and they have money and pull, Balotelli and Rickie Lambert? You really think we can replace Lukaku with someone who can score as many gaols? Not a chance.

Stones can be replaced, Lukaku is a one off.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, they replaced with a fella who they had no intention of playing tactics to utilise efficiently.

I'd argue Stones is a one off, and we could easily find someone/the team would replace Lukaku's goals.

Not to say Lukaku isn't a beast and if he shuts his trap i'd prefer him to stay, mind
 

Knowing you have to break a team down to win the game and that they won't attack much, so start Smalling and Cahill. Hodgson logic. That England team was crying out for composure on the ball at the back and incisive passing. Stones should have played.
 
Saint Domingo said:
Knowing you have to break a team down to win the game and that they won't attack much, so start Smalling and Cahill. Hodgson logic. That England team was crying out for composure on the ball at the back and incisive passing. Stones should have played.
Click to expand...

I know, he could of played out from the back tonight, was perfect for him against a side with no interest in scoring, in fact the closest they came was from Smalling messing about, but the dinosaur of a manager isn't interested. I just hope he dosen't pick him at all now, if we come up against France or someone and get battered, and he plays him, then he will get the blame.
 
roydo said:
Quite.

Being kept out of probably the worst looking England defence by Smalling and a half fit Cahill.

Dont get me wrong, love him, but replacing a defender, no matter how good he may be, is way easier than finding 25 goals a season.
Click to expand...

He's being kept out on the selection policy of an absolute oaf though to be fair.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top