John Stones' character assasination on here.

Misinformed bullcack.

 

Who, what. where!!!!!! Must have passed me by cos I've missed it.

 

Terrible to see lads from tarn getting the monk on abart a lad from Tarn doing good.

 

Me n all.

 

He got a sniff of money and left his hometown club during a relegation battle to go and play U21 football in the Premiership. Understandable, but not exactly something to be proud of let alone honoured by the club!

 

Seriously?

 

Seriously. I think it was an error of judgement to name a club facility after a kid that played a handful of games and jumped ship at the first opportunity. What message does that send about loyalty?

 

It's the same old story for some I'm afraid. Anyone from Barnsley that does well gets stick. Always makes me laugh though when people have a go at footballers for leaving 'for the money', like they wouldn't make the same move. If it was Wayne Rooney leaving a Man United contract of £150k per week for, say, a Chelsea one on £200k per week I could understand the cynicism, as his initial contract was so lucrative to begin with. However, the pay increases that Butterfield, Hammill, Vaz Te and Stones got were life changing. In Butterfield's case, having just had an injury that would have ended his career not too long ago, why not take the money now just in case he ends up having to pack in like Luke Potter.

We had some on here trying to explain that it would have been better for John Stones to stay at Barnsley for another year a few days before he was on the bench for Everton at Old Trafford!

Not one person on this message board would turn down a pay hike from £1,500 per week (on a 1-2 year contract) to £10-15k per week on a 3-4 year contract (in Stones' case, a 5 and a half year contract!) without a moment's thought, particularly in an industry whereby you could receive an injury at work that could remove your earning potential in a flash of Michael Brown's boots. And all four moved to bigger clubs in either a higher division or soon to be higher division. Of course, that still doesn't mean it's not funny that Adam Hammill is now a division below us!

I personally think that giving our youngsters John Stones as an example of where they could end up if they knuckle down, work hard and look after themselves is a great idea. If we can churn out £3m players after half a season in our first team it shows we're doing something right. And if we keep on doing that we'll soon move up the league and hopefully reach a point where we can start hanging on to our better players.

 

Agree fella

 

Nice one, good post!

 

Good luck to John, but he left when we really needed him. Respect to that but in the long term he's a footnote, nothing more..

 

I'd also leave for the money, but I wouldn't expect a statue outside the ground!

 

Its only a couple of dumb bells and a bullworker

 

John's progressed for better or worse, there's no reason to name a facility after him. He's done nothing in football yet, if he does good luck to him. He missed out on a very real and important football moment that several of our first team are declaring as the best thing they have done in the game. John put his own interests first, which is fair enough but it doesn't make him any kind of role model for our club. Flitcroft has got a bit giddy on this one and while I'm chuffed to bits he's here, he should rein it in a bit on the long term branding of the club. It's for us to decide who warrants these accolades, not him.

 

I think the whole idea of naming it after John Stones is to say to the youngsters, "If you work hard, look what you can achieve" It's not a shrine to his efforts during his time at Oakwell, more a vision/goal for others to aim for.

 

Good post. As was Gordon Ottershaw's.

I have no issue with Stones leaving. We got a great fee for potential. That's all he is right now.

But until he realises that potential I feel naming a gym after him (and plastering it with images of him) is a tad bizarre, a tad tinpot and a tad gay.


There are far more inspirational players at Oakwell. But naming a gym after them? Unless it's Gym O'Brien. Obviously. Missed a trick there.

 

It's a joke. I'm trying not to take it seriously, tin pot is exactly right. Anyone would think we'd never bred a footballer before John Stones. I'm sick of hearing his name now.

Typical BFC, there is a good vibe and cause for optimism, then they piss on the fire with something stupid like this.

 

You lot talk as if the club will not have practically pushed him out of the door to get that £3m into the coffers.

The club will have been desperate for him to go. Flitcroft might not have been, and most probably certainly wasn't, but I'd be surprised if whether John wanted to go or not was even a consideration. How often do we get that kind of money offered to us?

 

The club wanted him to stay and thought the interest had passed. Once John wanted to speak to Wigan they resigned themselves to letting him go and getting the best fee. As we were already in deficit for the season, the board didn't put up any great resistance.

 

They might publicly have wanted him to stay, but I imagine them practically wetting their pants when they saw the chance to bring some millions in.

Don openly admitted at the start of January that they saw the club as being practically relegated in his interviews about getting a new manager in on Radio Sheff, and I felt Flitcroft sounded much more irritated in his interviews with the board for letting him go than with 'Stonesy'.

The overreaction to this news about the gym being re-named on here has been baffling to me. If it encourages the young players to get themselves into shape for competitive football and it motivates them to think about getting a move to the Premiership, then that's fine. After what Flitcroft achieved in keeping us in the Championship, he could call the gym whatever the hell he wants for me.