Fully aware of that. It doesn’t make it right though. They are overvaluing an asset due to who the buying club is.
My only point is, that it is right of them.
Valuation is relative. Valuation depnds not just on the |absolute| market value of a player, but on so many other variables - selling pressure, need of the player in that team (buying/selling), club's financial status, contract condition, previous dealings between clubs, FFP situation, player's non-footballing attributes, players desires, age, player's attributes aligning with that of the manager's, resale value, squad size, home-grown, and so forth. There are so many variables that are not apparent on the outside.
You're assuming that
it is wrong as Mount is overvalued, in part, because United is the buying club. There's always some element of bargaining, but if their demands seem unreasonable to us, we should move on. Like I said before, the general tendency in such transfers is to criticise the selling club, which in my opinion, is wrong. The selling club is absolutely right to value players the way they want. There's nothing wrong in it.
....and had few years in his contract then it might have been reasonable for Chelsea to demand 80/100m, but he ... only have a year left in his contract, 55m is more than a fair amount, Chelsea either accept it or we move on.
....
Because he has only one year left in his contract, it improves our bargaining power, but it does very little to his valuation. Those two entities sound similar, but are not. Valuation is complex. To add, what if Mount signs a contract extension tomorrow and is then offered to United? Suddenly, is it then reasonable for them to demand 80m?
We make too many inferences based on contract situations believing that clubs are obliged to sell us their players whose contract is about to run out on the cheap.
If Chelsea aren't under pressure to sell, they can demand the full fee, and it would be reasonable. If that valuation is reasonable to us, we say okay, else we move on.
