John Stones should leave: not necessarily Everton FC, but his agent
Every transfer window seems to throw up some pursuits of players that appear to resemble soap operas rather than dignified negotiations with a view to a business transaction. For example there’s Manchester United’s David De Gea being heavily courted by Real Madrid and Tottenham Hotspur’s relentless pursuit of WBA’s Saido Berahino, where Spurs’ manager Mauricio Pochettino compared the process to a love affair: “There are a lot of women around the world, but you want only one.”
There’s also Chelsea’s pursuit of Everton’s John Stones. Chelsea’s pressing need for new blood in central defence was highlighted by their first few games of the season. It’s perhaps strange that of all managers, Jose Mourinho failed to make the position his priority much earlier in the transfer window, and perhaps even earlier than that. John Terry has been a magnificent servant for Chelsea, having been with them for 20 years and arguably the best centre half in the country for a good many of those years. However, at 34 and with higher quality Premiership opponents resulting from even greater levels of sponsorship, it could perhaps have been anticipated that Chelsea’s warhorse was near to his final charge, at least at a club whose expectations are for the game’s highest honours.
Chelsea’s pursuit of a possible replacement, John Stones, at a rather late stage in the transfer window, almost smacks of desperation. After Chelsea’s most recent bid, rumoured to be around £30m, Everton had no hesitation in turning it down, falling well short of their valuation, rumoured to be about £45m. Although there’s a large discrepancy, both of these amounts seem appropriate for each club concerned. Without Stones, Chelsea would still probably finish in the top four, and with other reinforcements in central defence would probably finish in the top two. Everton, having had a poor previous season, could conceivably find themselves in a relegation battle without Stones or without an exceptional replacement.
With the egos of a Russian billionaire, a talented and hugely successful manager and a famous impresario involved, it’s no surprise that the situation has become somewhat overheated. Within such a context, and Everton digging in their heels and determined to either keep hold of John Stones or receive a huge amount to allow him to move, the best course of action for the player would have been to give of his best for Everton and say nothing. To ask for a transfer was likely the most inflammatory thing he could have done. It seems unnecessary because with the egos involved, it’s likely that it would have made absolutely no difference to the outcome of the transfer. It’s an even less influential act than it used to be because with much larger salaries, a new level of professionalism has descended on the game. In the old days a transfer request meant that if a player was denied a move then his performance on the field might reflect his discontent. These days such an attitude would be almost unthinkable
If John Stones doesn’t move then he’ll have to make up with his team-mates and fans who he’s publically informed that he doesn’t want to play with, or for, respectively. If he does move it will look as though he’s held a gun to Everton’s head, although it won’t have been anything to do with him. And overall to football fans everywhere, except maybe in London SW6, it’ll seem like ingratitude to the club that spotted him at Barnsley, honed his talent, and increased his market value by £42m (if you believe Everton’s valuation) or £27m (if you believe Chelsea’s).
Whoever thought it was a good idea for John Stones to ask for a transfer, and I’m assuming it’s his agent, should carefully consider how his actions have affected his player, and publically take the blame. And John might like to consider hiring another, rather more strategically aware agent.
So, the burning question of the day is; overall is the presence of agents a good thing for football?