John Stones

[SmackTalkerSkywalker]

%100 yes like a shot

snap d hand off lol

 

[ChicagoToffee]

but would u take 50 mill as reported???

In two seconds. He and his silly turns and fumbles can hit the bricks for that cheddar.

 

[bicycleheader]

I think the next step in this saga is that we pay 50mil to City to not sign him, and he stays.

We can then get on with retraining the rest of our players to be as good as him.

 

[Sharpys top lip]

hes going nowhere. Like the new project...(-;

 

[ggooggooggoo]

48 MILLION DEAL DONE
From City source

 

[AndyZ]

No worries here. Good luck at Citeh, John.

 

[BlueToff]

Good lad and a great player.

Wish we could keep him. Anybody who genuinely wants rid of a player with his talent shouldn't be watching football.

If he does go, though, we'll get plenty of money in and it will up our revenue massively, meaning we can pay the higher fees and wages while still staying within our FFP limits.

 

[BlueToff]

We do need to sell though to grow our wage bill

It's not to grow the wage bill per-say, it's to grow our revenue which enables us to pay higher wages without breaching the FFP regulations.

 

[sageyefc]

It's not to grow the wage bill per-say, it's to grow our revenue which enables us to pay higher wages without breaching the FFP regulations.

Tomatoes tomatos

 

[kithnou]

48 MILLION DEAL DONE
From City source

What a ridiculous number. 48? Makes no sense. Sorry mate. I'm calling it as fluffity fluff.

 

[Bud McBlokeski]

I won't miss his Cruyff turns in the 6-yard box like. I hope he does them at City though.

 

[Ashtonian]

Makes sense all round for city to sign him. suprised to be honest that united don't come in for him as he is clearly going to be a top defender for the next 10 years for wheoever signs him.

Nice thing from my perspective is that if we did sell him for around 50 (which based on sterling is a fair price to city) it would immediatly top up any transfer funds we have by what, 40 million after sell on clauses and what not? if we did sign mata and witsel soon it would essentially pay for them (if witsel fee is the lower one) and the released players cover the extra wages surely of the two new signings so it puts us essentially in the same boat after it is done but two top players better off.

 

[BlueToff]

Makes sense all round for city to sign him. suprised to be honest that united don't come in for him as he is clearly going to be a top defender for the next 10 years for wheoever signs him.

Nice thing from my perspective is that if we did sell him for around 50 (which based on sterling is a fair price to city) it would immediatly top up any transfer funds we have by what, 40 million after sell on clauses and what not? if we did sign mata and witsel soon it would essentially pay for them (if witsel fee is the lower one) and the released players cover the extra wages surely of the two new signings so it puts us essentially in the same boat after it is done but two top players better off.

And with the increased revenue that will allow us to up the wages of other players and other new signings.

 

[Azza]

I won't miss his Cruyff turns in the 6-yard box like. I hope he does them at City though.

They'll be non of that under Pep.

 

[Tree13]

Stones
Wanted by all the top clubs
Possible world record fee for a defender
English
Koeman could improve him
15% of any fee goes to barnsley

Yet people dont seem too bothered about selling him?

It's really simple.

We need to generate a chunk of profit in order to be able to increase our wage bill. We can do this either by

a) selling several players who didn't cost much initially (think McGeady, Cleverley, Besic, Coleman)
b) selling Barkley
c) selling Lukaku
d) selling Stones

Nobody is going to give us 10p for McGeady. No-one outside of Everton rates Besic. We might get £8m for Cleverley from someone like Newcastle. Coleman would probably still get us £20m. Call it £30m overall?

Barkley might fetch £30m (he's basically not gone to the Euros, tailed off a bit at the end of the season, but is still young and English, with clear potential). He's replaceable as a #10, with the likes of Mata being linked to us.

Lukaku.... given how much we paid for him, we have to sell him at a higher price to show a decent profit. We also have to consider that we would HAVE to go out an buy a top striker to replace him: Kone and Niasse are not viable. Of the perm-proven strikers in the market only three are on a par or better than Lukaku: Vardy, Kane and Aguero. None are available to buy, and two of them I wouldn't actually want. So if we sell Lukaku for £65m, will City let us take Aguero for £40m? No, I don't think so either.

This leaves us with Stones. Looking at your comment again they are actually reasons why, if we NEED to sell someone, Stones is the guy to go. His nationality, combined with the fact that he's wanted by several top prem clubs, is what will lead to him attracting a (near?)world-record fee. Yes, Koeman could improve him. Yes, 15% of the fee goes to Barnsley. Neither of these facts are reasons not to sell him.

Look, if someone offers us £8m for McGeady, £14m for Cleverley and £16m for Besic then sure, we can keep Stones and go on our shopping spree. But no-one wants them. You can only sell what people want to buy.