It's a hell of a lot of money for a young centre half but how much would he cost to replace? He's on a long contract so Everton don't have to be in a hurry to sell him. They could still get a whopping fee for him next summer.
Kenwright rejects Stones request in official statement and reiterated he is not for sale. I still feel a £50m offer would be accepted as I said previously but I applaud Bill on this.
I think this is the salient point. We're ****ing off Chelsea for the way they've approached this entire chase and banking on the fact that the lad can impact on our season this year and still retain his value for next..... **** you Mourinho, and as for that utter **** Cundy just
Although part of me thinks Everton are I the right I can't help thinking that £30k a week for a player the club say is worth in excess of £40m is a pittance (comparatively) and I can't blame Stones for wanting to leave. Sooner or later a lawyer is going to force through a transfer like this, it's almost inevitable. Look at it dispassionately. He's being offered the chance to play at a far higher level than he is at the moment, Chelsea being a CL team and Everton not even in the Europa league (this isn't a sleight, it's just a statement of fact) he will be on a far higher wage than his, comparatively poor, current wage of £30k (yes, a lot higher than most of ours, but probably not even half the highest wage at Everton) and the compensation on offer is 3900% of his original purchase price, the second highest amount for a defender in the world, but it's not enough. If Everton truly think he's worth that much, why didn't they pay him accordingly? His wage in no way reflects his value, Ask yourself how you would feel if you were Stones? And don't blah blah about loyalty, he isn't an Evertonian, you bought him from his boyhood club which he left to further his career, and now you're stopping him do that. Challenging something like this in the courts is the next natural step on from the Bosman. I think sooner or later release clauses will be have to be included in every contract. I don't like it, but then I'm not in a trade that I have ten years of doing that could end in one caught stud. I think he should be allowed to leave, or at least have his wages significantly increased to a level of someone worth £40m, which is higher than any other player at your club. I've never had a problem with West Ham players wanting to leave to further their careers, just the ones who want to do a sideways move for the cash. If people asked themselves what they would do, 99% would do the same as Stones.
He signed a new five year deal last August! Players seem to be happy to sign a new contract to get a pay rise but they also want to ignore the clause that ties them to the club for an agreed period of time.
You sound like that stupid **** Cundy with his slavery comparisons Firstly, the lad was happy enough to sign a new 5 year deal on £35k a week last year. If he didn't want to commit to that length of deal,then he shouldn't have signed it. That said, now that this debacle has occurred, I think he'll be offered a new deal at Everton that reflects his current level. I fully expect him to agree a new deal within weeks that'll probably have a release clause as part of it, or there'll be a gentleman's agreement that he can leave next summer. As for a legal challenge because some millionaire footballer can't get an even bigger paid day, what utter bullshit, boo ****ing hoo. I've seen reams of ****e written about this issue with dolts like Talksport wrongly quoting the Webster ruling, which is now completely meaningless anyway, due to clubs inserting clauses into players contracts that if they break the contract then their market value will be deemed to be the harm caused. I'm delighted that we've made a stand like this to one of the oil clubs who think they can do what they ****ing like. Mourinho and Chelsea's orchestrated media lead campaign to land Stones was a ****ing disgrace and I'm made up that we told them to go and blow it out their arse
Slavery comparisons are fair, though indentured servitude is far more accurate, we're talking about corporate entities owning people and selling them for a profit or working them themselves for a profit, with no chance of release for five years. You're just too fixated on your own bias because it's 'your' club, and the numbers involved to get off your own high horse and see it for what it is. If you knocked off a couple of zeros and made them pipe fitters the same arguments hold, your arguments would hold in the 19th century
Let's also sort his value out. Everton have placed no value on him, his current value is the fee we paid Barnsley. However his contract has value, that is what Chelsea are offering to buy from Everton. This is where Chelsea have valued him at £40m.
Comparing contract law to slavery... very irresponsible. Slavery is a word we shouldn't dilute. A good lawyer wouldn't put a contract in front of Stones that can lead to this situation. Everton are well within their rights to hold firm. Unfortunate for Stones in the short term but he'll probably survive on 30k until he gets a move or improved contract with a buy out clause.
The slavery comparisons are fair??? What comparing multi millionaire footballers on heinous salaries being 'deprived' the chance to move to another football club at their whim, despite having signed a legally binding multi million pound contract with their current employer With.....Africans herded in chains and then transported across the planet and sold like cattle into a life of misery and subservience........ Is a valid ****ing comparison? Go give your head a wobble you ****ing stupid Chav tithead
anyone advising a young up-and-coming player to sign a long-term contract with a comparatively low EPL wage and no release clause isn't working for the player.
Well the club didn't make him work with that agent! So maybe agents should Be banned and just a handshake to seal and deal
