John Stones

[KCblue]

30m? Stones must be at least 70/80m in today's market, even with his injury record. Back-to-back champion, with multiple cup trophies to his name too, english (premium), entering his prime years, and must have at least 3 years left on contract.

Not that i think there is any truth whatsoever, but if we are talking hypotheticals, let at least the figures be sensible.

£70m-£80m for John Stones isn't sensible to anyone other than City. Maybe I'm undervaluing him a tad but absolutely no chance he would go for anywhere near those figures.

 

[Coatigan]

£70m-£80m for John Stones isn't sensible to anyone other than City. Maybe I'm undervaluing him a tad but absolutely no chance he would go for anywhere near those figures.

How naw?

If clubs can refuse 50m for Dunk, 45m for Ake, and when maguire is 85m, etc etc etc..

Different times , different market. If we were looking to buy him, he'd be an 80m player.

 

[asahartford1]

We should do everything possible to help encourage Arsenal in their quest for Europa glory, while depleting our squad before the CL resumes. A loan for Stones would satisfy on both counts. While also making it a first for the Sun in nailing a gossip headline.

 

[Phil1]

If Pep has run out of patience with him then I can see him being available in the Summer.
That’s a big if, though. Personally I don’t see it, I think Stones still has a future here and we’re yet to see his best days.

 

[BlueMoonRisin’]

How naw?

If clubs can refuse 50m for Dunk, 45m for Ake, and when maguire is 85m, etc etc etc..

Different times , different market. If we were looking to buy him, he'd be an 80m player.

City have always been poor selling players for market value ever since Swales was chairman. Nowadays not a lot has changed. Clubs expect to fleece us when buying their players. When we sell they expect us to sell our players at a bargain price. John Stones hasn't progressed enough and established himself to command a fee anywhere near 80m, and even if he had clubs would balk at our asking price.

 

[northstandgiveusasong]

City have always been poor selling players for market value ever since Swales was chairman. Nowadays not a lot has changed. Clubs expect to fleece us when buying their players. When we sell they expect us to sell our players at a bargain price. John Stones hasn't progressed enough and established himself to command a fee anywhere near 80m, and even if he had clubs would balk at our asking price.

I agree with this, there's no way in a million years we'd get 70-80 million for Stones.

If the rumours are true and it does remain to be seen, I think City will be looking to accept an offer on around what we paid, in other words, glad to get back what we paid.

 

[Semper aggressus]

Would be ridiculous to even consider a loan offer from Arsenal, especially as we're already short at centre back, literally and numerically. He's our second best central defender by some distance and has potential to improve if he can stay free of injuries. In no way should we even contemplate selling Stones either. We are not a selling club, Arsenal can fuck right off.

Not only do we need to keep and nurture Stones but in summer we obviously need to sign a world class pacy, tall, commanding centre back with excellent passing and positional sense otherwise teams will continue to score at set pieces or on every bloody break they have against us. If we get this position right we're set for at least two seasons without need to sign anyone else except a back-up keeper.

 

[Coatigan]

City have always been poor selling players for market value ever since Swales was chairman. Nowadays not a lot has changed. Clubs expect to fleece us when buying their players. When we sell they expect us to sell our players at a bargain price. John Stones hasn't progressed enough and established himself to command a fee anywhere near 80m, and even if he had clubs would balk at our asking price.

I agree that Stones hasn't progressed enough to merit a rise in the fee.

What i'm arguing is that the market has, and in today's market, no way is he a 30m player! 70/80m easily. imho, obviously.

 

[BlueMoonRisin’]

I agree with this, there's no way in a million years we'd get 70-80 million for Stones.

If the rumours are true and it does remain to be seen, I think City will be looking to accept an offer on around what we paid, in other words, glad to get back what we paid.

It's widely reported we paid Everton 47.5m For Stones. I very much doubt we'd be able to sell him for that much at present pal.

At the end of the day a player gets sold for what the buying club is prepared to pay and the selling club agrees on. If we are to sell him I think we'd probably get 35m tops right now.

 

[BlueMoonRisin’]

I agree that Stones hasn't progressed enough to merit a rise in the fee.

What i'm arguing is that the market has, and in today's market, no way is he a 30m player! 70/80m easily. imho, obviously.

Transfer fees are total bonkers pal, especially when City are involved!
Not so long ago we were reportedly buying Johnny fuckin' Evans for stupid money!