Ross Barkley

[Tony Hibbert's 3rd leg]

Being honest, we'll likely never know the reason for him stalling on the contract. Best to except the outcome and give the lad support to be the player we know he can be.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

Delighted with that if it's true

Real statement from us that we're prepared to hold onto our best players

 

[sageyefc]

If he signs, that will be the narrative from certain people - but it's the wrong one.

The correct answer is this thread would be 800 pages shorter if Koeman didn't open his trap, and the player signs his contract in late June/July after negotiations, exactly like he did in 2014 in identical circumstances.

So it's rons fault Ross and his team strung us along waiting for a better offer to come in

 

[Tubey]

Being honest, we'll likely never know the reason for him stalling on the contract. Best to except the outcome and give the lad support to be the player we know he can be.

I still think there's quite a bit to be played out. I think Koeman wants Sigurdsson and not Barkley, and he's in conflict with the board.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Barkley still move.

 

[kenada_blue]

Just been told he's going to Spurs. £120k per week.

They wouldn't pay that

 

[banno]

If he signs, it's because the board have got on with negotiating with him properly and binning off Koeman and his ridiculous deadline. His agent would have probably got him an extra £25k a week and did his job for his client.

It'd be the right outcome for everyone for the next five years and hopefully beyond, instead of the wrong outcome dictated by a manager who will be here another two years tops.

No matter what here, Koeman played this out horribly. If Koeman had his way, we'd lose a player for certain for a fraction of his value for no reason whatsoever. I don't mind Koeman, but when he goofs, he goofs, and people should call it as they see it.

Yes he should be called out when he goofs but on this occasion IMO he didn't goof he wanted to get on with business and acted accordingly and correctly for Everton FC.

 

[Tubey]

So it's rons fault Ross and his team strung us along waiting for a better offer to come in

No, it's Koeman's fault for making it public knowledge when the correct answer as a business was not to devalue an asset and keep it private. If they couldn't come to an agreement, you are then at least in a position of strength to sell on your own terms. As it was, once that deadline was given and passed, we made a completely unnecessary rod for own back.

That's the number one reason I'm sure Koeman doesn't rate Barkley by the way - if he rated him, he wouldn't have done it. Compare and contrast the kid gloves approach to Lukaku to that of Barkley and it is telling.

 

[kenada_blue]

Maybe weve decided gylfi is too much money so weve upped ross' contract terms.

My guess is we were confident of getting gylfi and didnt have a plan b for him.

Maybe koeman thought gylfi/klaassen is a better combo but weve decided hes too much so we'll stick with ross?

Who really knows but id like him to stay

He is too much money.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

No matter what here, Koeman played this out horribly. If Koeman had his way, we'd lose a player for certain for a fraction of his value for no reason whatsoever. I don't mind Koeman, but when he goofs, he goofs, and people should call it as they see it.

I agree mate

I said from the start that I didn't like that ultimatum

Koeman's only human and sometimes he'll, as you so succinctly put it, "goof"

Nowt wrong with recognising that. It's healthy in fact and will stave off another cult

 

[royalblue66]

Large number of ITK 's on here, all of a sudden.

 

[d4kyxx]

115k?

Just goes to show in life that it's not how hard you work but how lucky you are.

Deserves it? No chance

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Maybe - maybe not mate

Buy to sell by it's inference (rather than literal) usually means you can only buy when you sell important players mate, right now we can raise 60-80m or so through fringe player sales more than likely, which would say cover are current spend and say Keane.

IF that happened the net spend would be zero, but it wouldn't seem or feel like it had been buy to sell in the slightest would it?

So if lukaku did get sold and we reinvested the entire fee recieved on top of current spend, then shifted the 'dead wood', net spend could still be low but it wouldnt seem at all like a sell to buy situation, but rather very good player trading

Buy to sell isn't always out of necessity though, it can be out of choice.

Too many place to much emphasis on NET spend, however it can be an indication of intent.

Koeman undermined himself. He devalued an asset by putting him up for sale in the public domain after a certain date was passed.

There's no evidence Barkley or his agent have ever sought a move or done anything beyond want to negotiate better terms. Absolutely none.

Occam's Razor situation this - the most obvious conclusion is more often than not the right one. His agent hasn't slagged the club off, Barkley hasn't pressed for a move, Koeman's deadline has been disregarded and the club has left the contract on the table and negotiated it. That points to one outcome, not the others.

The board devalued the asset by allowing it to run until it's last year of contract.

I don't think it was ever a case of money or "better terms" either.

Koeman doesn't fancy Barkley, and I think he knows it. He'll be up against it for game time this season. More so now for being an indecisive on his contract as he is on the pitch.

If he signs, my gut says someone has convinced Koeman to "But OK..." it.

 

[Harryflashman]

They wouldn't pay that

I might be wrong but Twice what Alli is on and More than Kane isn't it ?

 

[kenada_blue]

Boo union said something similar...so...holding my breath

 

[kenada_blue]

I might be wrong but Twice what Alli is on and More than Kane isn't it ?

Yep.