John Stones

[skiddypants]

Ferdinand cost around £18 million then £35 million on potential and that was over 13 years ago so if we pay £50 million now for stones is it really that crazy a price i dont think so personally.

I agree but think Ferdinand was a season in front roughly in development.

 

[Dribble]

Maureen really wanted him last summer but didn't pay what Everton wanted. This year he's somewhere where they're clearly going to spend whatever to try and get back to the CL and he knows Everton's price, yet he's not even bid. Appears to be us or no one.

If I was trying to sell my house and only getting one offer and no one else even looking, I may have to accept the price is too high. Wonder if Everton will see sense in August, or will they just claim he was confused over summer again

Difference is that Everton don't want or need to sell, but if the player wants to leave they've put a price on his head that they'd be happy to swallow. I reckon the 15% to Barnsley is the sticking point, it's the difference between Everton getting £42.5m or £34m.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I'm a huge fan, last season affected everyone, not just Stones and don't forget he is one of the younger players so they will have dips in form anyway. Baines/Coleman looked a shadow of their former selves, McCarthy was nowhere to be seen and that same defence (aside from Stones) that were quite tight under Moyes, looked terrible. Martinez defensive structure was non existent and his goals conceded stats from each club blacked that up.

Bit racist, that.

 

[SWP's back]

He's good, but he's not the world's best defender. he's got potential. And no one else is in for him so you've actually negated the point you're trying to make

Why would he have to be the world best defender?

All he'd have to be is the best defender to move clubs this window.

It's like Pogba going for £100m, doesn't mean Utd think he's the best player in the world. It's just Messi, Ronaldo, Aguero, Suarez, Neymar et al haven't moved this summer.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Ferdinand could defend, it may hurt for some people to say this but Ferdinand was a great defender who could also play. Pep would of loved him. Stones has a long long long way before he could be compared to Ferdinand.

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I seem to remember him being labelled as a bit erratic at the time.

 

[Neville Kneville]

And they probably will. But you don't spaff your load straight away. You still try and get the best price you can. My guess is that we'll end up with something similar to the Sterling deal.

I imagine so.

But in the end, if that can't be negotiated, it will be down to how much Pep feels he needs him for the plan to work. After watching the pre season games, I'm starting to think he may need a keeper more.

 

[SWP's back]

But who would fit Pep's style of play better?

Probably both of them to play a great deal given how Pep likes a back three.

 

[Damien10]

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I seem to remember him being labelled as a bit erratic at the time.

Ferdinand was eager, he had a big presence he would often insert himself with great eagerness, this sometimes went against him. I don't think Stones has that defensive presence, I don't think any striker in the world would mind a physical battle with him. If Laporte didn't sign the new deal we would not be sat here now talking about Stones. Laporte for me is potentially a lot better and it's a shame he choose not to make the move.

 

[andyhinch]

Other stories clearly suggest he would have gone! Not that it matters. What does is that he has appeared keen to join City for some time and Pep wants him. Just need a bit of sense over the deal. I'd hope that an initial fee plus bonuses arrangement could be agreed, which really is the fairest way to go when huge sums are involved for a young player but what's fair got to do with it?

It was a song reference :-)

 

[SWP's back]

If Pep was so desperate for Stones that money was no object, City would pay whatever it took.

Glad you're not at the negotiating table.