Mason Mount | Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
utdalltheway said:
But we could be persuaded to go to £60M if they say no to 58. ;)
Honestly I’d tell Chelsea £40M with a 5M add on for every treble we win with him in the 1st team. Or, they can go feck off.
Click to expand...
What ever you pay for mount you won't get disappointed. He is quality and you all will love him for his services to your team. Your team will be converted the draws into wins with him than without him.
 
L1nk said:
Look I agree with your general point but you can’t just ignore all the reports of our financial situation. It’s all good saying we need to sign Caicedo or Szbozlai or Harry Kane but we’ve barely got a pot to piss in

Mount was a great player before this season, I mean he won the CL with Chelsea he’s not some twob bit nobody and has qualities the manager likes and wants. Most importantly, considering our financial outlook, he represents a cheap deal because we will most likely only pay Chelsea like 20mill this summer due to the fact he only has a year left on his contract and he wants to come to us it encourages Chelsea to part with him for a relatively decent deal that benefits us and our financial situation instead of paying the whole thing in one go.
Click to expand...

I’m just not sure I can ever consider an almost 60m fee for a player on his last year of a contract a “cheap deal” when he just came off his worst year
 
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
I’m just not sure I can ever consider an almost 60m fee for a player on his last year of a contract a “cheap deal” when he just came off his worst year
Click to expand...
So what if he's just had his, worst season? The entire Chelsea team did. They finished 12. It's not stopped city and arsenal each buying a player from them. We weren't the only big club to want Mount either. Clearly he's highly rated by those who know a bit about football
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
A lot of people raving about Rice to Arsenal but in my mind Mount at 55 million represents considerably better value. I know they're not similar players, before someone mentions that. The point I'm making is that I really don't see why Rice to Arsenal is seen as a better deal.
Click to expand...
On paper, maybe, but a player's value is only really determined by how important they are to a team. Mount's contract situation contributes to the disparity there so it isn't a completely fair comparison, but Rice addresses a far more obvious need in that Arsenal side than Mount does in this United team.

Mount probably would be treated as a better value for money deal if we actually required a number 10. Currently we have Bruno Fernandes and Christian Eriksen, so it's less impressive when you're going to have to push one of Mount or Fernandes into some pseudo number 8 role where neither of them play their best football, and that transfer does very little to improve the balance of our midfield.

For the same reason I think Caicedo would represent considerably better value for United, even if we have to spend an extra £30m or so to get the deal done. The two biggest problems in the United midfield last season were that we were too easy to play through and didn't retain the ball well enough. I don't see how adding an attacking midfielder in the 17th percentile for pass completion does anything to improve us on either of those fronts.
 
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
I’m just not sure I can ever consider an almost 60m fee for a player on his last year of a contract a “cheap deal” when he just came off his worst year
Click to expand...
Don’t understand why so many here worry about the price. Would 60m be okay if he had 2 years of contract left ?
We are screwed if we don’t score enough goals next season and Mount would help us with that , atleast that’s what Eth thinks.
 
Where do you gents see Mount playing? Will he be compatible with Bruno?

I wonder if ETH will employ a midfield system similar to Pep and Arteta - Cesemiro at the base with Mount and Bruno further afield.
 
Last edited:
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
We quite literally caved to Ajax just last summer and spent almost 100m on a 50m player because Ten Hag wanted him. Which is my entire point, no competent club should be conducting business that way. Which is why the argument for caving for Mount is stupid
Click to expand...
That was last year, this year we've set a price above which we wont go. That means we wont cave.
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Where do you gets see Mount playing? Will he be compatible with Bruno?

I wonder if ETH will employ a midfield system similar to Pep and Arteta - Cesemiro at the base with Mount and Bruno further afield.
Click to expand...
Think that was always his plan.
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Where do you gets see Mount playing? Will he be compatible with Bruno?

I wonder if ETH will employ a midfield system similar to Pep and Arteta - Cesemiro at the base with Mount and Bruno further afield.
Click to expand...

This is how we already played last season though Bruno was naturally a bit further than the other two.
 
The single biggest factor about this transfer that will annoy people is the fact it'll prove untrue the whole "we can't spend money until we're sold" narrative .
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Where do you gets see Mount playing? Will he be compatible with Bruno?

I wonder if ETH will employ a midfield system similar to Pep and Arteta - Cesemiro at the base with Mount and Bruno further afield.
Click to expand...

He can play as a 3 upfront.
Mount , Striker, Rashford

or as a 3 in Midfield.
Mount. Bruno
Casemerio
 
Most depressing thing so far is that it seems we are wasting most of our money and time in this windows on Mason fecking Mount out of all possible players. We have made him the main target of the current window which is ridiculous.
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Where do you gets see Mount playing? Will he be compatible with Bruno?

I wonder if ETH will employ a midfield system similar to Pep and Arteta - Cesemiro at the base with Mount and Bruno further afield.
Click to expand...
That’s his plan and we already say glimpses last season when Bruno played slightly deeper. And because that’s his plan, it’s easy to see why ETH would prefer Mount to Caicedo.
 
Josh 76 said:
He can play as a 3 upfront.
Mount , Striker, Rashford

or as a 3 in Midfield.
Mount. Bruno
Casemerio
Click to expand...
What does it mean he "can" play in front line and in midfield?
Bruno "can" play in midfield (against Brentford paired with McTominay).
Shaw can play in LCB pretty well against any opposition.
Wout can play #10 no worse than a #9.

Those are two very different can's. I don't like when people mention X player can play A/B/C role because it's not really that much of a benefit if he isn't excelling in position we're buying him for in the first place.

Adisa said:
That’s his plan and we already say glimpses last season when Bruno played slightly deeper. And because that’s his plan, it’s easy to see why ETH would prefer Mount to Caicedo.
Click to expand...
Wasn't Bruno playing deeper because it turned out Sabitzer isn't really a midfielder but something of a shadow striker that doesn't get involved in the buildup at all? At least that's how I remember it, ETH experimented a bit with Sabitzer deep but ended up playing Bruno deeper and Sabitzer up top. I would be surprised if we see this as long term solution for a couple of reasons.
 
Borys said:
What does it mean he "can" play in front line and in midfield?
Bruno "can" play in midfield (against Brentford paired with McTominay).
Shaw can play in LCB pretty well against any opposition.
Wout can play #10 no worse than a #9.

Those are two very different can's. I don't like when people mention X player can play A/B/C role because it's not really that much of a benefit if he isn't excelling in position we're buying him for in the first place.
Click to expand...

Playing multiple positions/roles at good level is very good attribute to have, something coaches would love as it's easier to make tactical adjustment in-game with those sort of players.

On Mount, not sure how he plays as CM but looks like EtH, Klopp, Arteta all wanted him for similar role as none of them play with pure 10 position.
 
I agree to some level that the fee seems to be high for Mount, but when you consider his age and his "homegrown" status it makes a bit more sense. We could easily get 8yrs out of him, at which point his fee would seem a relative bargain, we could have paid £80+ million for Mudryk, who Chelsea will never get 8yrs from despite his contract.

I think people focus too much on the length of the players contract with his current club, if we have a need now (which we do) then filling that need with the right player is the priority, the fee is secondary and should be judged on his value to us (which in my opinion should be based on need, and the length of time he can fill that need). It's a balance and yes I would like us to pay less, discount is great in any facet of life, but for me the priority is getting the manager's targets in and doing so within the budget we have available.
 
L1nk said:
Look I agree with your general point but you can’t just ignore all the reports of our financial situation. It’s all good saying we need to sign Caicedo or Szbozlai or Harry Kane but we’ve barely got a pot to piss in

Mount was a great player before this season, I mean he won the CL with Chelsea he’s not some twob bit nobody and has qualities the manager likes and wants. Most importantly, considering our financial outlook, he represents a cheap deal because we will most likely only pay Chelsea like 20mill this summer due to the fact he only has a year left on his contract and he wants to come to us it encourages Chelsea to part with him for a relatively decent deal that benefits us and our financial situation instead of paying the whole thing in one go.
Click to expand...

Szoboszlai has a release clause of £60m, which is around the same value as Mount, and will almost certainly command smaller wages. I am realistic on our finances but I am calling a spade a spade regarding these targets.

Mount isn’t going to make us the best team.
 
cyberman said:
Is he saying Liverpool walked away from Mount?
Click to expand...
Yes but because of player preferred manutd so they moved to alternative in macallister.

Manutd also can move to alternative if they dont want to pay what chelsea wanted.

Suggested that if you want to posture as tough negotiator you should have alternative otherwise you cant become a tough negotiator.

Being tough and losing your target without alternative not wise.
 
ShinjiNinja26 said:
He was their first choice but there were reports that the price was a stumbling block for them but it’s obvious the main reason was he preferred to join us.
Click to expand...
It was reported everywhere that Mount told our rivals that he wanted us.
First time I’m reading (I think) that Liverpool walked away from him
 
ETH knew man utd need some strategically flexible players. Who can be comfortable to play multiple positions without dropping the quality on the ball.

Mount one of those players that fit in that category. He is quality on the ball but also off it he bring that energetic press to destabilise opponents ball retention and disrupt their ball playing ability.
 
el3mel said:
Most depressing thing so far is that it seems we are wasting most of our money and time in this windows on Mason fecking Mount out of all possible players. We have made him the main target of the current window which is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's a shambles. Helping Chelsea unload their dross, while also helping finance their move for a vastly superior player in the face of Caicedo. And the fact Mount is our priority target this summer to fix our midfield is appalling.
 
We should buy Caicedo and ask Mount to see out his last 12 months and sign for us for free. We could promise him a 20 million signing on fee next summer as a sweetener
 
roonster09 said:
Playing multiple positions/roles at good level is very good attribute to have, something coaches would love as it's easier to make tactical adjustment in-game with those sort of players.

On Mount, not sure how he plays as CM but looks like EtH, Klopp, Arteta all wanted him for similar role as none of them play with pure 10 position.
Click to expand...
On the bolded part- I'm sure it's good to have a player that can cover multiple positions, but I question this approach in a situation that we'll be pushing Mount to play a different position than what he excells in (further forward). This is my concern. It's one thing if you buy CDM to play CDM (and he can also play CB), and something totally different if you buy #10 to play him in midfield because he "can". This approach has not really been effective for us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.