Ross Barkley

[bazzer25]

The club didn't wind Stones' contract down.

Where was Ross' offer when he had 2 years left like Rom?

Can you confirm he was never offered a contract and maybe just didn't sign it?

 

[marnie]

NEA .He has hardly set the world on fire has he.

 

[coollino]

He hasn't actually rejected anything yet though, Lukaku did and we were made aware of that.

 

[sageyefc]

Judas thy name is Ross

 

[CJR]

Don't re-write history either though. The lad has had a great second half of the season and will be a miss.
If he does go though, we'll move on.

Name one good away game he has had since Xmas? 1 goal and 2 assists all season away from home? From a player who is given a free role? Great? not for me better yes, but not Great!

 

[IlliniToffee]

The club didn't wind Stones' contract down.

Where was Ross' offer when he had 2 years left like Rom?

He was offered and rejected a new contract a little over a year ago.

 

[Kenshin]

Don't re-write history either though. The lad has had a great second half of the season and will be a miss.
If he does go though, we'll move on.

Perhaps you might be the best person to ask this to.

Do you think to some extent Barkley holds us back on the pitch? On his day he can be fantastic for us, and it is massively fustrating as a blue to see what he can do when he wants to. But in terms of the other side of things, the running with the ball and not making decisions, the trying to shoot when he should be passing and visa versa, the lack of tracking back at times or tackling, the clumsy or cynical challenges when he gets fustrated to all name a few things.

If you took that out of the side and put someone in who could offer runs and passes, with a better decision making would the team benefit? Or at least if you took the best of barkley attack wise and reeled it back a bit but added the tracking back, the tackles, an unselfish game, would we as a side be better off?

 

[Tubey]

They are two different situations though, as he has said in the past. If Barkley had 2 years left on his contract, I very much doubt we would even be hearing his name.

I agree with what Koeman is doing here, as he is leaving the decision up to Barkley/Barkley's agent. He is basically saying, if you want to stay, we want you to, but on our terms, which after the majority of performances this season, and last, is a fair stance to take imo.

Lukaku is very different, as he will not necessarily drop massively in value this summer, Barkley will only have to hold on to 12 months more and he'll be able to go for free and have a much greater wealth of suitors for his services. I would hazard a guess that Lukaku would be handled in a similar fashion if he was in the same position. that's all it is though, a guess.




On another point, I wonder if he's been told/advised to move from Everton to increase his chances of international appearances.......

No, sorry, they're not different in a crucial way - they've both been offered contracts. Koeman has said Barkley not signing a contract would indicate he doesn't want to be here.

Now how, in any way, is that not an issue with Rom too, given he has actively rejected a contract?

If Lukaku hadn't been offered a contract where:

* It was on the table to be signed.
* Rejection of it would indicate he didn't want to be at the club.

... then fine. As it stands, the only difference between the two is one year in contract length, and I don't see that as a big enough difference to put an arbitrary time limit on one and not the other. Why a week? Seriously, why? The transfer window isn't open yet - the season isn't even over yet - so why?? The ball is in our court regardless - we can sell him whenever we want to in the coming months. And why go public on it? Why alienate a player and show rank hypocrisy in your treatment of their peers? It makes no sense - none of it.

 

[kenada_blue]

Can you confirm he was never offered a contract and maybe just didn't sign it?

So he's sat on a contract for 2 seasons? You seriously think that?

 

[kenada_blue]

He was offered and rejected a new contract a little over a year ago.

Funny....I like the way this "information" is popping it's head up.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

No, sorry, they're not different in a crucial way - they've both been offered contracts. Koeman has said Barkley not signing a contract would indicate he doesn't want to be here.

Now how, in any way, is that not an issue with Rom too, given he has actively rejected a contract?

If Lukaku hadn't been offered a contract where:

* It was on the table to be signed.
* Rejection of it would indicate he didn't want to be at the club.

... then fine. As it stands, the only difference between the two is one year in contract length, and I don't see that as a big enough difference to put an arbitrary time limit on one and not the other. Why a week? Seriously, why? The transfer window isn't open yet - the season isn't even over yet - so why?? The ball is in our court regardless - we can sell him whenever we want to in the coming months. And why go public on it? Why alienate a player and show rank hypocrisy in your treatment of their peers? It makes no sense - none of it.

I think Koeman thinks Barkley would be a useful squad player but doesn't rate him as good enough to be a regular starter to bridge the gap between the top teams, publicity as wants as many clubs to come in for him as possible.

 

[Tubey]

So he's sat on a contract for 2 seasons? You seriously think that?

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...-talks-for-ross-barkleys-new-everton-contract

There we go - talks started in March.

March.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Alternatively, Barkley will sign a new deal a few days after Rom leaves.

But then - that's the cynic in me.

 

[Dave Higgs]

No, sorry, they're not different in a crucial way - they've both been offered contracts. Koeman has said Barkley not signing a contract would indicate he doesn't want to be here.

Now how, in any way, is that not an issue with Rom too, given he has actively rejected a contract?

If Lukaku hadn't been offered a contract where:

* It was on the table to be signed.
* Rejection of it would indicate he didn't want to be at the club.

... then fine. As it stands, the only difference between the two is one year in contract length, and I don't see that as a big enough difference to put an arbitrary time limit on one and not the other. Why a week? Seriously, why? The transfer window isn't open yet - the season isn't even over yet - so why?? The ball is in our court regardless - we can sell him whenever we want to in the coming months. And why go public on it? Why alienate a player and show rank hypocrisy in your treatment of their peers? It makes no sense - none of it.

The reason is we will need to act fast on a replacement for Ross. We don't want him gone last day of window without no replacement or our number 1 target could have been snapped up by someone else.

 

[IlliniToffee]

Funny....I like the way this "information" is popping it's head up.

This isn't ITK stuff, it was all over the news in late April of last year.