John Stones sell on clause panto

Can we keep it in here rather than having every thread that mentions Stones spiral into the same old argument? I'll start it off.

The woman in Oakwell Sandwich told me we definitely got a 279% sell on clause for Stones. Fact.

 

Oh no we haven't

 

I heard from Barry Taylor's (wwhhhoooooo???) Aunties hair dressers nephews mother in law that her son saw a piece of paper in a car traveling towards Liverpool over the m62 being driven by an 8ft midget. And on that piece of paper there was map showing the exact point with an ex where a piece of parchment was kept that defiantly stated that we had a 31.357985325788976433% sell on clause that was like proper real and everything.
Well I think that's what I heard.

 

why have you started a new thread if its always a panto! just adding to the drama. yes we've got one if hes sold. end of. move on.

 

There is a certain irony to someone starting a thread on a subject because there are too many other threads on that subject. I certainly promise* to stick to this official thread though.

*fingers crossed

 

Oh yes we have.

 

Sell on clause, no sell on clause, it doesn't matter. A windfall of a few million quid won't make us successful. We've spent that many times over on our downward spiral since the play-offs of 2000. More often than not it's caused us trouble. When we haven't got much money, we tend to buy well. Give us a war chest and we take leave of our senses.

If Lee Johnson is a good manager and, crucially, he's given time (and the space to do things his way with support not interference), he'll be successful. Even without Patrick Cryne dipping in to his pocket we have a very competitive budget in this division. Without wishing to be all Sheffield Wednesday about it, we're one of the better supported clubs, more fans pay through our turnstiles than most, which gives us more money. It doesn't give us any right to success, but it allows us to spend more on transfer fees and pay higher wages, which, theoretically, should allow us to sign the better players. A good manager with that advantage, will, given time, achieve success.

We got promoted to the Premier League on a squad that cost us about a million quid. It's a long time ago, but that was still very cheap. Wilson was fortunate enough to have some very good young Barnsley players in the squad, which he blended with some very astute signings. Johnson has the pick of what is probably the best crop of young players since then. He's got scope to bring in some of his own players as the squad is relatively small. It took Wilson three years, but it was a great three years. Let's give Johnson the same time and see what he can do.

I don't care about the John Stones deal, it's done and forgotten as far as I'm concerned. I only care about what deals the board do in the future and if they've learned from past mistakes. From the way they've been speaking the last year and from what I've heard from elsewhere, I believe they have. Other than players refusing to sign contracts, which we have little control over, I don't think we'll have our pants pulled down again while the current regime are making the decisions. However much the John Stones deal stung us, it's nothing to what Mr Cryne must feel. He's as big a supporter as the rest of us, but not only that, it cost him money.

It's over and done with, onwards and upwards.

 

He'll only get that time if he's instantly successful, and instantly successful to him and us is playoffs minimum, this coming season. He admitted that himself to us that night on the lash, and Mansford pretty much agreed when I put it to him the following day.

I'd like us to make the playoffs too, but if we don't I won't be calling for folks heads. I'm of the belief that most successful managers are successful because they've been given time, support and backing. Telling someone "you must hit this target in this timeframe" I feel is the wrong way to go about things. But what do I know other than **** all?