PragueBlue
Well-Known Member
We would be stupid to sell for that price.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
We would be stupid to sell for that price.
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
£30M wouldn`t have been bad money given the season he`s had so far for Leicester.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!
BlueMoonRisin’
Well-Known Member
I agree. I'm hoping Stones realises he's in last chance saloon and gets his arse in gear rapido. It would pain us blues to see him sold for a silly fee only for him to go on to become the player we know he can be.We would be stupid to sell for that price.
BlueMoonRisin’
Well-Known Member
It's JFE oakie! Go n' have a lie down in a dark room n' crack open a can of Guinness when you come to your senses pal; )£30M wouldn`t have been bad money given the season he`s had so far for Leicester.
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.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree, respectfully. I get the reserved opinion, but i can't buy into it.
There'd be no point selling at 35m, what do you spend that on, can't eveb begin to replace him for that.
I guess we can only ever truly know if arsenal show actual interest and the club put a price out, like they did with leroy.
Either way, we agree he's not going anywhere this month. Summer is a (in football) lifetime away.
Blue Feather
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2013
- Messages
- 1,532
Willing him to become consistently good with form and injuries BUT if Pep feels it's not going to happen then sell for a high fee and NO loan. Think we'd be hard pushed to get 50 million 'up front' as it is now though so might have to be 35-40 plus add-ons unfortunately
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.
I'm not saying those players are as good as him or twice as good in Maguire's case. I'm saying that clubs know we have fuck loads of cash and thus always lowball us on a fee. If we were talking one of the young forwards or midfielders or Laporte or Ederson then yeah they would command huge fees but teams know that they can get an option not far off from Stones' quality for much cheaper than you're suggesting we would get. Those clubs also rely on those players much more than we rely on Stones. Selling one of them could result in them going down. Realistically, knowing we'd be bringing in a replacement, how much worse off are we without Stones?
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.
Exactly. If we could even get £45m for him in the summer I wouldn't be shocked if City accepted it, pending his form in the second half of the season.
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
He was the best defender on the park against us mate and just because he`s an ex Rag means nothing to me.A good investment for that sort of money. ;) He`s still better than Stones.It's JFE oakie! Go n' have a lie down in a dark room n' crack open a can of Guinness when you come to your senses pal; )
I'm not saying those players are as good as him or twice as good in Maguire's case. I'm saying that clubs know we have fuck loads of cash and thus always lowball us on a fee. If we were talking one of the young forwards or midfielders or Laporte or Ederson then yeah they would command huge fees but teams know that they can get an option not far off from Stones' quality for much cheaper than you're suggesting we would get. Those clubs also rely on those players much more than we rely on Stones. Selling one of them could result in them going down. Realistically, knowing we'd be bringing in a replacement, how much worse off are we without Stones?
Exactly. If we could even get £45m for him in the summer I wouldn't be shocked if City accepted it, pending his form in the second half of the season.
Who would you say is of the same quality as stones, but much cheaper (and also english/homegrown, and approaching their prime years)?
genuine question btw, rather than point-making bickering.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.