Mason Mount | Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rhyme Animal said:
Ten Hag also wants Kane. I say get Kane.

What if the choice was the following (as it actually may well be)…

1. Kane and Rabiot

2. Mount and Hoijlund

Which would you prefer, given the current squad?
Click to expand...

Probably Mount and Højlund. Feels like if we just sign the first 2 we're going to have real problems in a couple of years when we need to replace half the team because they're all 30+

If we get the latter 2 for closer to what we think they're worth then we might still have enough for a GK. Rabiot could be signed as well anyway, as he'd be on a free.

If it was just two and nothing else I'd probably still choose those two. Need to be thinking about winning the league in 2/3 seasons, not repeating the mistake of trying to buy instant success.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Ten Hag also wants Kane. I say get Kane.

What if the choice was the following (as it actually may well be)…

1. Kane and Rabiot

2. Mount and Hoijlund

Which would you prefer, given the current squad?
Click to expand...
It's well briefed that Levy won't sell Kane.
Chelsea however will sell Mount.
 
El Jefe said:
But this is a flawed system especially with the personnel we currently have. Mount for Eriksen in the system is an improvement but not one of any real magnitude.

It's not like we're a team that just won the league with our system. We finished 3rd in the league conceding 43 goals along the way despite having 17 clean sheets. It isn't a coincidence that we've struggled in away games vs the top half when you see such a graphic. Mount in place of Eriksen will still lead to largely the same problems.

Casemiro doesn't have the legs he used to, he's great at closing spaces in compact areas but in an ocean of space we see him diving in for missed slide tackles which then turn it into a 3v3.

Like I said in a previous post, this should be for teams who are very good in possesion or teams that close open spaces extremely quickly. We don't excel in either of these areas.
Click to expand...

The system itself is fine, a lot of teams set up that way.

In terms of our team, I'm not arguing that it will work with the players we have. I think we need to strengthen other positions for it to work, particularly in the back five as that's where the auxillary support for midfield, ball progression and the ability to player a higher defensive line will come from. That's why it's not the route I thought we'd go down in midfield.

But as per our interest in Mount and every report being that he'll be used as our #8, this does appear to be how we intend to set-up. And the flaw in that set-up for our team won't be Mount himself, who is well suited to that role and would be a significant upgrade on Eriksen in terms of pressing, physicality and potentially in terms of output too.

In other words once we accept that that's how we intend to play, the Mount signing makes perfect sense. The question is whether the rest of our transfer business addresses some of the other issues that will hurt us in that set-up. Without that context of where else we intend to strengthen, it's hard to judge the overall approach.
 
We can't keep caving into these demands from clubs and we should walk away. We've done this too many times and now some random striker without a solid track record and is basically potential at this point is quoted at 80M to 100M to us. I don't mind overpaying IF we are getting an absolute worldie and have to overpay to beat other clubs to get the player but none of that is the case with Mount.
 
manutddjw said:
We can't keep caving into these demands from clubs and we should walk away. We've done this too many times and now some random striker without a solid track record and is basically potential at this point is quoted at 80M to 100M to us. I don't mind overpaying IF we are getting an absolute worldie and have to overpay to beat other clubs to get the player but none of that is the case with Mount.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We never know when to walk away and that’s the reason teams keep rinsing us because we have a track record of paying what they want. Nobody but us is after Mount so they either sell for 50m or we get him for free next season but next season we’ll probably have more competition and the choice will be his.
 
manutddjw said:
We can't keep caving into these demands from clubs and we should walk away. We've done this too many times and now some random striker without a solid track record and is basically potential at this point is quoted at 80M to 100M to us. I don't mind overpaying IF we are getting an absolute worldie and have to overpay to beat other clubs to get the player but none of that is the case with Mount.
Click to expand...

Who says we're caving into demands?

All we know from reports so far is that we made an initial offer and they set a higher price then we were willing to pay. Then we increased our offer somewhat, while their demands seemingly decreased in turn. Now there's a smaller gap in valuation between the two clubs which we will presumably work to compromise on.

That's exactly how you would expect negotiations for a player to go. You're framing it in a needlessly negative way for no reason.
 
manutddjw said:
We can't keep caving into these demands from clubs and we should walk away. We've done this too many times and now some random striker without a solid track record and is basically potential at this point is quoted at 80M to 100M to us. I don't mind overpaying IF we are getting an absolute worldie and have to overpay to beat other clubs to get the player but none of that is the case with Mount.
Click to expand...
United are mugs, it will take time to change the perception. We should definitely walk away in deals where we end up shoring our rival teams coffers. Sterling was a better player compared to Mount. We shouldn't pay more than Chelsea paid a year back for Sterling who too were in similar position of last year contract.
 
Just walk away from this deal, he’s maybe worth 25-30m based on the year he just had, prior performance, no intention to sign a new contract and just generally being a very average footballer. Chelsea are taking a hard stance? Fine, just leave him there for a year, then he can walk on a free (not to us hopefully).
 
Looking at the first reports when this story heated up in May & early June.

Guardian: "Mount could be available for about £50m."

The Mail: "United want to pay in the region of £55m for Mount, a price that falls way below Chelsea’s £85m valuation."

Talksport: "United are prepared to offer around £50m for Mason Mount but Chelsea are holding out for a fee of closer to £80m".

The Guardian: "[United] hope to pay between £50-60m for Mount, but Chelsea are likely to ask for at least £70m plus add-ons."

Telegraph: "United are to make an offer of £50m to sign Mount later this month".

Ornstein: "Chelsea's expectation is to receive a fee of £70m + £10m in add-ons for Mason Mount. United hope that they can find a compromise at £55m"


The point being that as it stands right now our highest reported bid for Mount has hit the lowest level of the range we were reportedly willing to pay for him when this story emerged. And with Chelsea's demands seemingly having dropped, it could still be done for around the £55m range the reliable Ornstein was reporting we were willing to meet weeks ago.

And yet for some reason people are talking about us caving in to Chelsea's demands? Talk about needless negativity.
 
bosnian_red said:
Guess you're missing my point - mount does a good job at getting across the pitch, has loads of energy, presses very effectively. He can replace Fred's output in that perspective without us losing much, and it still being very good on the whole.

"More likely to struggle", sure, but still highly unlikely to struggle because of any work rate or defensive balance issues in midfield. Injuries of course change things, but Mount/Bruno/Casemiro is perfectly fine in balance. Defensive issues would be down to attackers not doing their bit defensively or individual mistakes or systemic issues, not down to the midfield not having defensive balance.
Click to expand...
I think there would be a defensive imbalance. While Bruno and Mount are good at pressing and are extremely fit, I think that midfield trio lacks defensive awareness and positioning, particularly in defensive transitions or when we're on the back foot. If we control games and press high in a dominating fashion (skeptical that this midfield trio would be able to) I think it will be fine but I'd worry about Casemiro having too much defensive responsibility.

Casemiro's passing was erratic at times last season, Bruno will always have his moments and while I don't think Mount is careless in possession he's not one to set the tempo in a way other advanced midfielder do, hence I think having another midfielder that is more defensively aware is important. Mount will be an improvement on Eriksen, particularly winning the ball back high but I don't think Mount solves the problem that Eriksen presented.
 
sullydnl said:
Who says we're caving into demands?

All we know from reports so far is that we made an initial offer and they set a higher price then we were willing to pay. Then we increased our offer somewhat, while their demands seemingly decreased in turn. Now there's a smaller gap in valuation between the two clubs which we will presumably work to compromise on.

That's exactly how you would expect negotiations for a player to go. You're framing it in a needlessly negative way for no reason.
Click to expand...

£50m should be the clubs absolute maximum for a player with one year on his contract and I’d question if he’s even improving our first 11. The fact we are already offering £45m plus £5m means we are going to overpay for the player. He’s not that good and I don’t know why the club is chasing him.
 
I never saw Mount as an elite level player especially at his age. But my God alot of posters are going to be eating humble pie when he comes in shines under Ten Hag.
 
Josep Dowling said:
£50m should be the clubs absolute maximum for a player with one year on his contract and I’d question if he’s even improving our first 11. The fact we are already offering £45m plus £5m means we are going to overpay for the player. He’s not that good and I don’t know why the club is chasing him.
Click to expand...

The fact that you're questioning whether he'd improve our first 11 suggest you underrate him, certainly relative to the club. So obviously you're going to think we're overpaying for him.

But however much people do or don't rate Mount is separate to how negotiations are being handled. And as is we've currently offered the lowest amount all those reports on our interest suggested he would actually cost.

So for people to argue we're caving into Chelsea's demands, or that we're being taken for mugs, or that we need to tell Chelsea to feck off is bizarre. As is we're still on course to pay what we intended to pay for him, with no failure in negotiations on our part or suggestion that we're willing to go beyond our valuation.

Complain about signing Mount all ye want, but quit with the needless negativity about how we're not handling the actual attempt to buy him correctly.
 
sullydnl said:
Looking at the first reports when this story heated up in May & early June.

Guardian: "Mount could be available for about £50m."

The Mail: "United want to pay in the region of £55m for Mount, a price that falls way below Chelsea’s £85m valuation."

Talksport: "United are prepared to offer around £50m for Mason Mount but Chelsea are holding out for a fee of closer to £80m".

The Guardian: "[United] hope to pay between £50-60m for Mount, but Chelsea are likely to ask for at least £70m plus add-ons."

Telegraph: "United are to make an offer of £50m to sign Mount later this month".

Ornstein: "Chelsea's expectation is to receive a fee of £70m + £10m in add-ons for Mason Mount. United hope that they can find a compromise at £55m"


The point being that as it stands right now our highest reported bid for Mount has hit the lowest level of the range we were reportedly willing to pay for him when this story emerged. And with Chelsea's demands seemingly having dropped, it could still be done for around the £55m range the reliable Ornstein was reporting we were willing to meet weeks ago.

And yet for some reason people are talking about us caving in to Chelsea's demands? Talk about needless negativity.
Click to expand...
:lol: This is exactly what I said when this rumour started. The absolutely ridiculous poker fee of 70-80 mil for Mount being quoted. So when we end up paying around 55 mil people will call it a good deal.
It is way too much. ETH wants him so we will probably pay this.
But Mount in normal circumstances would not be worth that much, let alone with 1 year left.
This is the same player almost every England fan apart from Chelsea fans were calling Lampard’s son and calling Southgate clueless and a negative manager because he was playing a workhorse over way more talented players such as Sancho or Grealish. And this was when Sancho was at Dortmund and Grealish at Villa.
Now we are being linked with him and ETH wants him all of a sudden 55 mil would be reasonable, Mount is a player who can attack and defend, is intelligent, can run and press and is tactically flexible.
What a turnaround.
 
united_99 said:
:lol: This is exactly what I said when this rumour started. The absolutely ridiculous poker fee of 70-80 mil for Mount being quoted. So when we end up paying around 55 mil people will call it a good deal.
It is way too much. ETH wants him so we will probably pay this.
But Mount in normal circumstances would not be worth that much, let alone with 1 year left.
This is the same player almost every England fan apart from Chelsea fans were calling Lampard’s son and calling Southgate clueless and a negative manager because he was playing a workhorse over way more talented players such as Sancho or Grealish. And this was when Sancho was at Dortmund and Grealish at Villa.
Now we are being linked with him and ETH wants him all of a sudden 55 mil would be reasonable, Mount is a player who can attack and defend, is intelligent, can run and press and is tactically flexible.
What a turnaround.
Click to expand...

And I've always thought people were idiots for underrating him like that, so pointing out that they did hardly strikes me as a compelling argument. Because he is clearly a very good attacking player who presses to a very high level and is tactically flexible. If other people don't think he is, they're wrong. *shrugs*

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that none of those reports on how much Mount would actually go for or how much we would actually pay were suggesting less than £50m, which at the moment is the maximum we've reportedly offered.

It's one thing for people to think he "should" be worth less than that, or that we shouldn't be interested in him at all. But it's another to criticise the club for failing to secure him for that imaginary price they've made up when nobody actually involved has at any point seemed to believe he'd go for that little.

All part of the constant, needless negativity.
 
Oh God, as soon as he's dropped by Southgate, he joins United. Sums up being an English United fan these days. I'd rather pay Rabiot and his mum 20m than give Chelsea 50/60m for a very average Mount.
 
fuk off Chelsea....you want more than 50m for a player that has one year left on his contract while you are selling Kovacic for half that price to the defending league champs. fuking bunch of muppets
 
Can we now confirm it’s muppet season and have Jonathan Shrager squash the story and say Mount has never talked to United in his life.
 
Brightonian said:
I know you're asking a different poster, but to butt in:

Yes, if it means getting Kane, as they proposed.
In fact, yes if it means getting any #9 who scores 20 league goals or more next season.
Click to expand...
What difference does it make when Levy does not want to sell to us?
 
This will be done for 50+5. Everyone is happy.
Ten Hag seems to want him badly and I would trust him over the football managers here.
It seems he wants a sitting 6 and two roaming 8s. I am happy with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.