John Stones transfer saga

[oldblue]

Undoubtedly.

Stretford turned his head and engineered the move.

dodgy dealings with his family too at a young age (allegedly). Some footballers would be better off with their mum or dad doing the negotiating

 

[deipnosophist]

Look in the finances thread, or have a look at @watchedtoffee on twitter.

cheers...well any debt drawdown is transfer money. 28 mio of debt matured in fin year 2015. Wonder how much was rolled/redrawn?

 

[Khalekan]

dodgy dealings with his family too at a young age (allegedly). Some footballers would be better off with their mum or dad doing the negotiating

I can't stand that bloke Gordon someone who runs the PFA but he says these young players have no need to go to barrow boy, spiv type agents because they have people at the PFA who will handle all the contract negotiations with only the player's interests considered.

 

[BiggyRat]

The pressure of getting abuse or what?
can't think of any reason why he should cry unless he felt he's the victim of the situation which led me to think he either regret his decision or pity himself for the mess he had created.

Well, that's the thing isn't it, we don't know and, being of a personal nature, it's probably nobody's business.
He was happy enough to sign his contract, happy enough to turn out & play the last game... Perhaps the abuse tipped him over the edge? Perhaps submitting a request, if he did, is now a regret? We all break at a different point. Maybe he found his.
But I most certainly agree that it's the situation he's in that's caused it. Self inflicted? That remains to be seen.

 

[RaleighBlue]

The pressure of getting abuse or what?
can't think of any reason why he should cry unless he felt he's the victim of the situation which led me to think he either regret his decision or pity himself for the mess he had created.

The pressure of making the correct decision. He's 21 years old. And he's the center of a whirlwind. He has the media and Chelsea every single day telling him that it's best for his career, best for England, best for whatever that he leaves Everton. Probably his agent as well.

Then he has his manager, and his coworkers all telling him he should stay. Regardless of how he felt at the beginning, of course he's felt overwhelmed. It's entirely possible the media pressure did its job, and he handed in the request because of fear, even if he didn't originally want to go.

I know it's crazy to think of someone making 30k a week as a child, but he's still very much a young, young kid. I cannot vouch for how I'd handle his situation at that age (actually I can; I'd be, at least, very very liquored up - which is why professional sports were never my destiny).

It's easy to look at him and say how easy his life is - but he has an entirely separate set of problems going on, and has no way to know how to approach them. And I'd be very surprised if he had any confidants that could help him through it. We don't have many players that have gone through anything like this on our squad (maybe Baines...but Baines was much older). I do not envy Stones, even if I envy his paycheck.

 

[oldblue]

I can't stand that bloke Gordon someone who runs the PFA but he says these young players have no need to go to barrow boy, spiv type agents because they have people at the PFA who will handle all the contract negotiations with only the player's interests considered.

seems very sensible. I think Rooney's family were offered an amount that must have seemed ridiculous to a family when they had no idea if Wayne would even make it, but it turned out to be meaningless in terms of the 1.5 million he made by selling Rooney at a young age. Wasn't he convicted of hiding details of the contract from Rooney's family? A lot of presure went on Rooney in the media then too.
If that kind of thing can be stopped then just having decent legal advisors at the PFA seems a great option. Suppose young players just need to be more openly aware of the pitfalls of signing with agents

 

[RaleighBlue]

Stones is not going to be sold for two reasons (i) Martinez does appear to be committed to building a team including his young core of Stones, Barkley and Lukaku as the key components and (ii) perhaps more importantly it fits the Board's narrative. "Money does not buy you everything" could have been penned by Bill himself, after all we've lived/survived on this philosophy since 1999. With the signing of a new financing loan against 2016/17 revenues the club will bring in some new players before the deadline, will keep the existing squad intact and Bill and the Board will face off the BU and Kenwright Out crowd with these two points.

I said earlier today - it is a master stroke, a wonderful defense against the claims that we need investment to move forward. I still believe we need that investment because my ambitions for the team are higher than the Board's and we need funding for the stadium and commercial activities.

It's not really a wonderful defense though. It's a hail mary that we can keep these players together and that they develop well and then we can win on the pitch. Maybe that will work!

The problem with this defense comes next - what happens after we win on the pitch? What happens when they want bigger paychecks? Do we hope for multiple golden generations? Or do we win once, let the team split apart for their big paydays and be happy with what we have?

It's a shame, but football is not wholly about what's on the pitch anymore. Branding the club must be a higher priority. Bringing in money so we can retain out players while they're in their prime rather than while they're developing is vital. Stones has 4 years. Say we keep him, but he doesn't sign a new contract after this fiasco. What happens when he's 25 and really hitting his top?

He leaves for free. Maybe we won something with him, maybe we didn't. But it's not a sustainable model.

 

[davek]

At first I thought we would keep him (and may still do so) but the highlighted part is what I truly think will happen. Clever tactics if that's the case, making the best out of a bad situation if you like.

Yep. Big league negotiations is my guess.

 

[ijjysmith]

Doesn't get more spot on than this.

 

[Khalekan]

seems very sensible. I think Rooney's family were offered an amount that must have seemed ridiculous to a family when they had no idea if Wayne would even make it, but it turned out to be meaningless in terms of the 1.5 million he made by selling Rooney at a young age. Wasn't he convicted of hiding details of the contract from Rooney's family? A lot of presure went on Rooney in the media then too.
If that kind of thing can be stopped then just having decent legal advisors at the PFA seems a great option. Suppose young players just need to be more openly aware of the pitfalls of signing with agents

Oh he is a rogue.

He was banned from being an agent for a couple years.

He was accused of being involved in a blackmail plot, I can't remember if he was acquitted or convicted.

He is always in litigation with former partners and clients.

He literally "stole" Wayne from Peter Mackintosh, an Evertonian who was Rooney's first agent.

 

[The Esk]

It's not really a wonderful defense though. It's a hail mary that we can keep these players together and that they develop well and then we can win on the pitch. Maybe that will work!

The problem with this defense comes next - what happens after we win on the pitch? What happens when they want bigger paychecks? Do we hope for multiple golden generations? Or do we win once, let the team split apart for their big paydays and be happy with what we have?

It's a shame, but football is not wholly about what's on the pitch anymore. Branding the club must be a higher priority. Bringing in money so we can retain out players while they're in their prime rather than while they're developing is vital. Stones has 4 years. Say we keep him, but he doesn't sign a new contract after this fiasco. What happens when he's 25 and really hitting his top?

He leaves for free. Maybe we won something with him, maybe we didn't. But it's not a sustainable model.

Don't get me wrong - I do not agree with the strategy. The requirement for capital to build the team to compete at the highest levels not just 5/6/7th place still exists, the requirement for capital for the stadium move or refurb still exists and the capital for commercial expansion still exists.

What I am saying is that the Board who are not seeking further investment capital will use this as a defense - it maintains their business model (you and I agree very high risk), it keeps Martinez happy, and it will be supported by the majority of non-active or non-protesting fans.

In that sense it is a master stroke.

 

[davek]

Boosting the price is of little value if that increased fee is then squeezed out of you by other clubs who know you've had (or are getting) a huge windfall and the window is about to slam shut.
We've seen it with the RS and Spurs, even when both did their business before the golden egg was cashed, everyone knew the game and they both got royally goosed by the clubs they were purchasing off. Unless Martinez has got a number of deals already lined up and waiting to go should Chelsea come up with a number that is simply too good to miss, then I think we should pull up the drawbridge and hang onto the lad until next summer

Surely the case. I expect all eventualities to be covered: deals in place ready to be green lighted if the sale goes through...maybe even done and dusted on players before the Stones deal (if it happens).


To me keeping a wounded Stones or using his fee to fet three very good players in: no decision to be made. You get the deals done and move on.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

Undoubtedly.

Stretford turned his head and engineered the move.

Which is exaclty what is happening here.

We had tweets from a friend of his 2 weeks ago, said he would not mind joining Chelsea, but he's happy at Everton and knew Everton would not sell him anyway.

So why would he hand in a transfer request, if he knew all that?, because as Martinez said yesterday, he's been influenced, and we all know who by, the guy with zero talent to offer in this saga, standing to make 3 or 4m out of the move.

 

[deipnosophist]

It's not really a wonderful defense though. It's a hail mary that we can keep these players together and that they develop well and then we can win on the pitch. Maybe that will work!

The problem with this defense comes next - what happens after we win on the pitch? What happens when they want bigger paychecks? Do we hope for multiple golden generations? Or do we win once, let the team split apart for their big paydays and be happy with what we have?

It's a shame, but football is not wholly about what's on the pitch anymore. Branding the club must be a higher priority. Bringing in money so we can retain out players while they're in their prime rather than while they're developing is vital. Stones has 4 years. Say we keep him, but he doesn't sign a new contract after this fiasco. What happens when he's 25 and really hitting his top?

He leaves for free. Maybe we won something with him, maybe we didn't. But it's not a sustainable model.

I agree entirely, however, I think @the esk intimated it being a wonderful short term defence only, by referencing the fact that Everton also needs investment/equity injection to fulfil larger ambition (club rebranding/profile etc) to which you make good point.

 

[The Hibbert Agenda]

Really nice of everyone in Lagos, California, Jedda and Johannesburg begging to #FreeStones