article on john stones in the daily mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...s-glimpse-Englands-future-Craven-Cottage.html

Sorry if already posted

 

£3m.

Good luck to him. It's great to see him do well, but I'll be almost 50 when John Stones has completed a long and glorious Premiership and international career and I'm never going to be able to read his name without getting annoyed.

 

Watched him yestdi easy to forget how young he is with his passing and reading of the game so good and yer 3million hope there is a percentage of next sale for us hope he makes it to world cup too

 

I agree! Don't get me wrong - I'm really happy for him and proud that he came through our academy. None of my ill will is directed towards John Stones himself (I realised it might come across like that so edited it to make it clear what exactly I was annoyed at). I'm never going to blame a 19 year old for trading a relegation struggle with Barnsley for a solid top-eight Premier League club, but Barnsley should never have accepted the offer in the first place.

 

We got about £100,000 for each game he played for us.

Selling him resulted in us being able to bring in Chris O'Grady, improve things behind the scenes and was probably the reason we could spend money on Dale Jennings in the Summer. It was a good deal for both - he got a fantastic club, we got £3 million for an 18 year old - the most we'd received for a player in about 15 years.

I don't think it's as bad as folk make out. I'd rather be pleased for him and proud of him when I see this rather than getting the bairn on.

 

It's great to see. But agree it makes you want to be sick knowing we got our pants pulled down.

I would say I hoped we had a %profit of next sale or additional fees for appearances/international caps. However I don't think we did. Would be a good question to ask mr Mansford at next meeting.

To be fair plenty of young players don't have the impact stones has. But it does seem any one with a bit of intelligence could see that stones, despite playing so few games, had a great chance of going on to be an international.

There were plenty on here saying he wasn't ready for championship football last season when we were in our pre Christmas dire form. Not wading through the posts but I remember it.

 

All fair points, and there's a rational part of me that agrees. But when a club needs money (not to mention excellent right backs) as much as we do, that rationality doesn't make it any less galling to see it written that a club like Everton got a great deal, and I think there's always going to be a part of me that thinks that.

 

They did get a great deal but paying £3 million for an 18 year old is a risk, too.

 

Lets see how much Southampton get for Luke Shaw this summer.

 

Blunts got £9 million for Kyle Naughton and Kyle Walker 5 years ago and they're both garbage. Martinez wanted Stones at Wigan and knew just as well as the Barnsley fans that he would make it in the big time. Wasn't a massive gamble at £3 million.

 

I think the line " the deal, which could cost unto £3m" implies that there are add on included in the deal to bring it upto £3m, and if so then we've not received £3m up front

Sent from my C5303 using Tapatalk

 

From what I was told, it was £1.5 up front and clauses, so many Premiership games , International call up etc.

 

Exactly, which is the gutting thing. £3m would have been too low, but at least that fee up front seemed acceptable at the time. But it seems more like to be perhaps half that, with the rest add-ons. To think it's rumoured Sheff Utd might be getting £6m for Harry Maguire come the summer....

 

David Flitcroft said at the 'Evening with..' at the Lamproom last year that there was a sell-on clause in there, and add-ons for international appearances. He also expected Stones to end up moving to a top club (Man U was mentioned) for a very big fee in the not too distant future, and end up as centre half for England

No figures mentioned though obviously...

 

Don Rowing. LOL.

 

Luke Shaw has done far more than play a dozen games for a struggling team in the Championship. Not a good comparison. A better comparison would be an 18 year old who has played a dozen games in defence for Millwall.

If we'd have kept Stones, got promoted and hung around the top half of the Premiership we'd have been able to command a bigger fee, but had he stayed with us we'd have been unlikely to have got much more from him and would have risked losing it all if he'd picked up an injury like his mate Luke Potter.

Whilst I personally think Stones was the best young player to come out of Oakwell since David Hirst, the Barnsley public didn't think so. His appearance in the Reds line up didn't see fans packing into Oakwell. Shirts weren't flying off the shelf. In much the same way that the crowds actually went down at the end of Vaz Te's time with us. Things like this don't give us much leverage in the transfer market.

He's now played almost as many games for Everton as he did for us, but now he's playing for a team that are fighting for a Champions League spot and that are almost definitely going to be in Europe next season, in front of crowds 3 or 4 times ours and in front of the England manager. If he stays fit and keeps improving, his value, when he gets the move to Manchester United, is likely to be in the tens of millions. That's life I'm afraid. Barnsley did fantastic in developing him into a £3m player by the age of 18 and after so few appearances, now Everton have the job of developing him into a £20m player and and England international. That would never have happened had he stayed with us, no matter how well he played, and it won't happen at Everton without a lot of effort and dedication from Stones and lots of hard work from their coaching staff.

And don't have a pop at the club for accepting the transfer fee either, because when you have a saleable asset who wants to leave the best bet, for a club in our position and with our limited income streams, is to cash in. However, I would be very disappointed had we not insisted on additional fees for Champions League qualification, appearances, England caps and future transfers, but, it may be that we did ask for those and the offer to balance this was a much lower initial fee. Now imagine if we had agreed a lower fee for Butterfield in exchange for all the add ons. We'd have ended up with nowt. Deals are not always straightforward and, sadly, a team in our position with our low support are never going to have the upper hand when the other side of the table has representatives from a top 6 team sat round it.

 

It's a hindsight thing tho isn't it. If RNL would have gone to Man Utd for the same money as a 16-17 year old we'd be saying the same! But look now. We'd never get a 1/4 of that now!

Everything's relative. Buying-selling market. Like injury prone Digby(to play devils advocate) who now would have taken the same money when he was been lorded up?

 

we have around 9k home supporters - don't blame Don , the public of Barnsley or lack off are the main reason , but hey lets carry on with the anti don propoganda

 

Fekin hell daren't look at the thread earlier but decided to now.
Bit suprised tbh I thought they'd branded him a benefit cheat when I saw headlines.