Stones OR Bolasie + Williams ?

[Shibbywiggles]

Think it was really more like 9.5m for Williams and 25m for bolasie, so discounting Gueye seems harsh.

Fact is stones will be better than any of them will ever be but they are right for us now and they want to be here. Williams is exactly what we needed at the back, Gueye has been our best player so far and Bolasie gives us something extra on the wing.

Good business all in all, but it would have looked better if we'd have backed it up with some other business....

Yeah I read our net spend was supposedly about 2.5m so really we're talking Williams, Gueye and Bolasie for Stones' fee. It's great business IMO Williams is proven quality and a great leader, Gueye looks an absolute steal and Bolasie will likely provide some of our most exciting moments of the season.

 

[Jags..class]

I think it is just another part of the fallout from the 0 net spend debacle.
After the discussion regarding the need to make significant wage increases, we then failed to utilise them after selling a prized asset. People are suspicious and are asking questions.

What does net spend have to do with Stones, he wanted out. We sold. That the way the game should be played anyway, you sell and buy replacements, spending like man u is not football tbf.

 

[Kev The Rat]

I suspect Stones suits city more than he suits us. So it's Williams and bolasie for me.

 

[TheBigIguana]

I suspect Stones suits city more than he suits us. So it's Williams and bolasie for me.

I agree with this. If we want to play more direct like we have done thus far then we need to be prepared to be on the back foot from time to time. As good as Stones can be at times his weakest moments come when the opponents have extended pressure and multiple threats in a row. At City he will be more focused on playing the ball and stepping into win it back which suits him. Winning headers and last ditch blocks/tackles are Williams strength and that will help us

 

[Khalekan]

Stek was a nominal fee and Gueye was £7.1mil...and the less said about Valencia the better. We could have signed them with no sales.

Going off the higher numbers quoted for Bolasie (£28mil) and Williams (£12mil) it matches the £40mil we ended up with for Stones after paying Barnsley and i think their agent fees and signing bonuses would cover any difference.

So the question is...what would you prefer, Stones OR Bolasie + Williams?

If you leave Bolasie out of the equation Zat and make it a straight choice between Stones and Williams then it is Williams for me.

Already our defence looks so much solid with Williams there.

IMO there is a great paradox at the heart of our summer dealings.

We received our biggest ever transfer fee for a player and actually strengthened the defence by replacing him for a quarter of the price.

We broke our transfer record for a player and at a stroke weakened our attack as he will start ahead of our most gifted player and even our hitherto second choice on the right wing, Lennon, has shown more in my eyes over the years than Bolasie has


But to answer your actual question......yes, I would prefer Williams and Boladie to Stones

 

[anton66]

Not a fan of the rolling Stones.
Robbie Williams is decent but what do Bolasie sing? .

I would like him to sing after we play the R/S......Oops! I did it again.

 

[Khalekan]

I suspect Stones suits city more than he suits us. So it's Williams and bolasie for me.

It was a great choice for Stones.

His deficiencies will be masked at City and will only be exposed in the latter stages of the CL and when England get to major tournaments.

Or when Zlatan welcomes him to OT next week

 

[Tubey]

Williams and Bolasie want to be here.

So it's not really a debate.

This is pretty much it.

However, if we were doing a hypothetical that everyone involved would be happy to be here for the next five years, then obviously I'd prefer Stones to Williams and Bolasie.

Stones will go on to be one of, if not the best defender in the world.

But we got good money for an unsettled player, it is what it is.

 

[Tubey]

Think it was really more like 9.5m for Williams and 25m for bolasie, so discounting Gueye seems harsh.

This is fair too.

On early evidence, Gueye is absolutely unreal, so overall our business was really good this summer.

It's a shame we did so little of it. Gueye, Williams and Bolasie for Stones should have been the foundation to build on. Unfortunately it wasn't.

 

[sageyefc]

Williams is a far superior defender, and the boy holgate is going to be boss. Wouldn't take the rat John back for free

 

[tim cahill]

Would rather have Stones long term but that wasn't an option because he only had 2 years left on his contract and he wanted out. At the moment I think Williams is the better defender so in the short term we're better off.

I'm not sure about Bolasie yet. He wouldn't be in my first 11 at this point but it's good to have a different option and it's seems like he can play in a few different positions.

 

[Eggs]

...you have to say we are better off with Williams/Bolasie because Stones didn't want to play for us. That not only impacts performance on the pitch but harmony in the dressing room.

 

[Gufty]

I think just swapping out Stones for Williams improves us defensively so its a really easy decision for me.

 

[Zatara]

Think it was really more like 9.5m for Williams and 25m for bolasie, so discounting Gueye seems harsh.

Fact is stones will be better than any of them will ever be but they are right for us now and they want to be here. Williams is exactly what we needed at the back, Gueye has been our best player so far and Bolasie gives us something extra on the wing.

Good business all in all, but it would have looked better if we'd have backed it up with some other business....

I did highlight that signing on bonuses and agent fees would match the disparity (if any) between the figures...hence not including Gueye.

 

[Zatara]

If you leave Bolasie out of the equation Zat and make it a straight choice between Stones and Williams then it is Williams for me.

Already our defence looks so much solid with Williams there.

IMO there is a great paradox at the heart of our summer dealings.

We received our biggest ever transfer fee for a player and actually strengthened the defence by replacing him for a quarter of the price.

We broke our transfer record for a player and at a stroke weakened our attack as he will start ahead of our most gifted player and even our hitherto second choice on the right wing, Lennon, has shown more in my eyes over the years than Bolasie has


But to answer your actual question......yes, I would prefer Williams and Boladie to Stones

Based on stats Gueye looked like being a good player. At the same time Bolasie looks like being a disaster and I agree that Deulofeu and Mirallas either side with Lennon in the squad also should put Bolasie as 4th choice or 3rd choice for either wing