Everton snubbed £65m deadline-day bid from Chelsea for James Garner

Harry Diamond 02/09/2026 6comments | Jump to last

(Photo by Jan Kruger/Getty Images)

Everton rejected a late attempt from Chelsea to sign James Garner on transfer deadline deadline day.

Chelsea made an approach to sign Garner as the West Londoners sought a replacement for Enzo Fernndez, who departed for Manchester City in a British transfer record deal.

According to The Bobble, Chelsea valued Garner at £65million but the approach was rejected. Garner is understood to be happy to stay on Merseyside after a new four-and-a-half year contract in January.

The 25-year-old was named Everton Player of the Season and Players' Player of the Season in 2025/26 and made his senior England debut in March. However, he missed out on a place in Thomas Tuchel's final squad for the 2026 World Cup.

It concluded a career-best campaign for Garner, who scored twice and provided seven Premier League assists. He led all Premier League midfielders for percentage of duels won, and ranked in the top 10 in his position for possession won, defensive duels won, and assists per 90 minutes.

Chelsea made multiple approaches for midfielders as Fernandez's exit edged closer. Xabi Alonso's side held talks with TFG-owned AS Roma for Manu Kone, but saw that approach turned down. Chelsea had agreed a deal for AS Monaco midfielder Lamine Camara but saw the French side pull the plug in the final hours of the window.

Reader Comments (6)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()

Tommy Carter
1 Posted 02/09/2026 at 11:03:29

I’d have driven him there myself for £65m so long as it facilitated the signing of 2 or 3 other players.

Good player, good character. But replaceable.

Alan McGuffog
2 Posted 02/09/2026 at 11:17:21

In that case the window was a total success then ?

Mark Murphy
3 Posted 02/09/2026 at 11:20:13

Not sure if you agreed with the Armstrong protests yourself, Tommy, so not aiming this at you, but I find it strange that some would accept the sale of our brightest midfielder of last season but break out the pitchforks for a proposed £40m income for a relative rookie who will quite probably spend more time on the bench than as a starter.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Armstrong is staying but in that scenario I'd keep Garner every day of the week.

Tommy Carter
4 Posted 02/09/2026 at 11:27:29

@3 because we’ve seen the ceiling of James Garner Mark. And we also saw his good form drop completely off a cliff last season. Put it this way, I don’t think he’s a £65m player.

I believe Armstrong already gives us a comparable level to Garner. Yet there is the potential that his ceiling is much higher.

Is that good enough for you?

If it were between Garner and N’Diaye right now to sell - which presumably it was yesterday based on this reporting then Garner should’ve been sold.

James Newcombe
5 Posted 02/09/2026 at 11:42:14

I think you could have kept the car on the drive, Tommy. These clowns couldn't have signed two or three other players in an evening. Not sensibly!

Ray Mia
6 Posted 02/09/2026 at 11:43:34

Mark#3 - yes
Tommy#1 - agree to totally, belly-aching laughingly, disagree... we are a squad in overhaul since 3-4 Seasons of relegation form, a decade of blindingly bad management and squad see-sawing... we surely need players to fit the times, and not dreams of subbuteo... Garner plays multiple positions across the team, we need Swiss Army knives as we ain't no Sushi restaurant.

On another note. I'm sad to see Beto go, I wanted him to do well, he has heart... but then again it was like watching a daddy long leg play at times...

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

How to get rid of these ads and support TW