Have Chelsea Overstepped in Their Pursuit of Everton's John Stones?
While protesting aircraft soar above Goodison Park, the ground below has become increasingly stressed—as "John Stones" is now uttered with a sense of impending depression.
After two compete seasons with Everton, the 21-year-old defender—according to the Telegraph's John Percy and Jason Burt—handed in a transfer request on August 25. The same report suggests Chelsea Football Club will follow Stones' action with a £33 million bid, in an attempt to capture one of England's best young prospects.
TOP NEWS
Madrid Fines Players $590K 😲
'Mbappé Out' Petition Gaining Steam 😳
Star-Studded World Cup Ad 🤩
Played by manager Roberto Martinez on August 26 in the League Cup vs. Barnsley, despite his wish to leave, Stones seems to have kept his place in the Spaniard's first team, but the question is, for how much longer?
Were the decision solely in Martinez's hands: Stones would not leave Goodison Park under any circumstance. Andy Hunter of the Guardian reported Everton's manager will reject the transfer request, and went so far as to warn Chelsea: "Money can't buy everything."
The world begs to differ.
Money cannot buy peace.
Money cannot buy immortality.
Money cannot buy happiness.
Money can, however, buy footballers—any footballer.
If Gareth Bale, Cristiano Ronaldo and Luis Suarez had price tags, to assert Stones cannot, or will not, be sold is a ridiculous stance.
Were Chelsea to double their initial bid of £20 million to £40 million—as suggested by the Guardian's Dominic Fifield—Everton must consider £34 million an incredible return (after the proposed 15 percent sell-on fee to his previous club) on their original £3 million investment.
The tenor of this saga is hovering around embarrassing.
Chelsea have been told three times after submitting three bids of £20 million, £26 million and £30 million that Stones is not for sale. Possessing the deepest of pockets, the Blues look an unrelenting, bullish force, incapable of backing down. Everton's convenient ignorance of how transfers are completed only compounds the situation.
There is an unsettling, self-righteous tone echoing from Merseyside. It seems as if Martinez forgets Stones was not found in some wilderness as a child, not raised in the "School of Science," not given his senior debut in front of a roaring Goodison Park and is not Everton through-and-through.
They found and bought him in Yorkshire—Barnsley to be specific.
Jose Mourinho's club have every right to bid what they desire, and the Toffees have every right to reject any number Roman Abramovich's $8/£5.2 billion net worth can muster, but to act like Chelsea are doing something unorthodox, and therefore monstrous, is disingenuous to the summer transfer window's nature.
Despite this, the notion of "tapping up" has become a common criticism.
A club officially tampers with a player when two things happen. The first is unauthorised contact. The second is doing so outside of the public domain. Were Mourinho to privately contact Stones without Everton's knowing, that would be considered "tapping up" the player. Presently, there is no evidence to support any such claim.
What has been waged, though, is a concerted public campaign. From Mourinho to John Terry, Chelsea have praised the young centre-back, as exemplified by ESPN FC, no doubt persuading him Stamford Bridge is a viable landing spot.
Though not official, this is viewed by most as a cunning rendition of tampering, hence the Blues are generally guilty in the court of public opinion; Stones' transfer request being the confirmation and culmination of their efforts.
An argument could be made neither public nor private contact could "convince" a young prospect Chelsea is an attractive destination—he would know this already. Moving to west London gives Stones an opportunity to experience Champions League football, play under Mourinho, be tutored by Terry, compete annually for trophies and live in one of Europe's foremost cities.
What is there to convince?
It does make Chelsea's incessant pursuit of the 21-year-old seem gauche, but one can understand their vigour.
Pairing Stones and Kurt Zouma solves Mourinho's starting centre-back partnership for the next decade plus. Furthermore, the alleged £40 million price tag, over the course of 10 seasons, would eventually seem a bargain. Taking Abramovich's current wage structure—as compiled by Jake Cohen of WAGNH—Stones would cost in the neighbourhood of £8 million per season.
All the logic points to the west Londoners being correct for wanting Stones in their team, but what cannot be denied are the poor optics.
This is not unique to the situation between Chelsea and Everton—this saga is simply a microcosm of transfer dealings as a whole. In a climate where clubs are battling themselves, other teams and public perception, the idea football clubs should have honour is becoming an antiquated notion—if it ever existed at all.
Clean breaks do not exist in the transfer market. Every side gets dirty—every party must compromise.
Supposing, as they project, clubs care about their players more than money (which is difficult to believe), then footballers should have the best position when the dust settles.
If Stones wishes to leave, and Chelsea are offering a commensurate sum, it should be incumbent on Everton to let the player broaden his horizons.
If he sinks or swims in a bigger west London pond, Everton supporters could either gloat in his misery or be proud in his progression.
That, though, is what should happen.
What will happen?
The deadline ends on September 1—so probably more haggling.
*Stats via WhoScored.com; transfer fees via Soccerbase where not noted.
