Mason Mount | Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think he'll lift our team as a whole without looking amazing himself. Good signing for a ten Hag team, especially if we get a keeper like Onana.
 
He's decent and certainly gives more energy to the midfield than Eriksen, who looked particularly off the pace when he came back from injury, but it doesn't feel like a signing that really moves the needle.
 
Again not turning cartwheels and I think the lad's a twerp, but we have to back the manager's choices and give the player a fair crack of the whip. Welcome Mounty
 
bond19821982 said:
The comments are so laughable here. We paid 55m for Bruno pre-covid. Arsenal paid 65 for Havertz. Spurs paid 40m for a player who has been relegated .

PL proven.
Home grown.
English
Chelsea previous player of the year.
Coming from a rival club.

Seriously, are you guys expecting a free transfer?
Click to expand...

You just quoted 3 transfers that have nothing to do with each other? Bruno was coming off 2 seasons of disgustingly good production, Chelsea bent Arsenal over for that Havertz fee and everyone is laughing at it, and what does relegation have to do with Maddison's quality? He's produced quite well for Leicester in recent years, 40m is a solid fee for that.
 
Crimson King said:
They wanted £70m to begin with.
Click to expand...

In a negotiation what you say you want and what you hope to get are 2 different things. If Chelsea said 60m we probably end agreeing at 50m. You say 70m and then fall to 60m you wanted and say to the other party, I have done you a favour here by reducing by 10m.
 
Really happy with this signing. Think he's a really good player, who suffered last season for a variety of reasons and I think people are being harsh on him for that. It's probably too much money, but it is what it is.

Chelsea fans don't seem that happy with him going
 
Quagmire Maguire said:
Maddison at 40 million is the better deal no?
Click to expand...
I would say it's better value but if the whole is to deploy him as a no.8, I don't think Maddison would make sense for us. At the same time, Spurs need a no.10 rather than a no.8, so Maddison makes more sense in their set up. It's all about the teams needs and for us, even if Mount doesn't succeed I don't think we should be rueing the fact that we missed out on Maddison.
 
I'm on board with the player we're bringing in and the fee we've paid for him. He fills a hole that desperately needed filling and has won major trophies.

Mount >>> Maddison for those who are struggling deciding this question.
 
Extremely disappointed with this signing. Didn't rate him before we were linked, didn't rate him when we were linked and don't rate him now that he's signed.
 
I don't rate Mount that highly. I think he's a good player, but with no standout qualities, barring a high work rate and the ability to follow instructions well. However, if Fergie was still around, I think he would love to have his hands on. There is a player that could be moulded into a highly reliable cog in a well-oiled machine.
 
Well it's done now, so no point in expressing reservations at this stage. Welcome to United Mason! Hopefully ends up bringing a big improvement to our midfield.
 
A player with one year left on his contract, who was fecking shit last season, who is playing for a club where is he massively surplus to requirements, who desperately need to bring funds in and we bend over for them.

Feck the brainless shitheads who signed off on this. This club will never, ever be fixed. In a decade of atrocious transfers this is up there with the absolute worst. Jesus fecking Christ, this has angered me so much.
 
So underwhelming.

£60m for Mason bl***dy Mount.

We fought tooth and nail this year for Champions League football so we could spend more and attract a higher tier of player.

Instead we are working with a limited budget and Mason Mount is who we blow a large chunk of it on.

Sorry if i sound like a party pooper, just really not happy with the direction this window is going.

Hope the club sale is wrapped up soon for all our sakes.
 
bosskeano said:
he's a younger version of Eriksen....so he's not a bad fit for what EtH wants to do tactically

if we went 55+5m that tells me there must have been some compromise on the payment structure
Click to expand...
Who I don’t think was ever the right fit stylistically anyway, but that’s another discussion.
 
Good player, Great energy I think he will be a fan favourite here

Multiple Chelsea player of the year awards including the year they won the CL they'll be gutted to see him go.
 
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
You just quoted 3 transfers that have nothing to do with each other? Bruno was coming off 2 seasons of disgustingly good production, Chelsea bent Arsenal over for that Havertz fee and everyone is laughing at it, and what does relegation have to do with Maddison's quality? He's produced quite well for Leicester in recent years, 40m is a solid fee for that.
Click to expand...

You’re having a laugh here, aren’t you?

Quality is irrelevant. Leicester are a Championship team and will be in the process of sacking at least one third of the folk behind the scenes, never mind offloading and bringing in new players.

Of course relegation affects the fee.
 
For the way we currently play, it is a good signing. Improvement on Fred who despite his efforts is just far too inconsistent - especially with passing. Eriksen shows flashes but doesnt have the legs to cover defensively. Mount is decent on the ballbut very very good defensive workrate. Got him at the very top of what we should pay.

Can let Fred go, Eirksen will be Mounts cover. Currently looking like McTom will cover Casemiro. Bruno plays every minute so no cover required :angel::lol:
 
RORY65 said:
He's decent and certainly gives more energy to the midfield than Eriksen, who looked particularly off the pace when he came back from injury, but it doesn't feel like a signing that really moves the needle.
Click to expand...

Felt Eriksen dropped off the energy levels in the late part of the season as well. Lets see what ETH can do with Mount. You get him and and Onana in and at least it helps shape how were going to play in preseason.
 
ShinjiNinja26 said:
Its not. Our final offer was meant to be £55m total, we’ve caved and gave them an extra £5m. In hindsight though we were never gonna miss out on the managers first choice target over £5m.
Click to expand...
I thought we bid 55 the last time, I was wrong apparently
 
Kag said:
If you’re complaining about the fee then you’re a halfwit. Genuinely.

Maddison, who is two years older and now a Championship player, has just gone for forty million. Havertz, who is comfortably worse than Mount, ten million more.

The fee is about right.
Click to expand...
Havertz didn’t have just a year on his contract. Maddison being referred to that is the stupidest way I’ve seen a player from a relegated side be described. Did you see the stats he put up last season in that team? There’s definitely a halfwit here and it isn’t anyone questioning the fee for Mount.
 
Remember what Ten Hag did with Van De Beek. Mount will get 15 goals in all comps here next season.
 
Solius said:
Bored of this one already. Not even a player I'd be majorly excited about and we've still got to go through the rigmarole of 'formal bid soon', 'rejected', 'gap in valuation' before we eventually fork out £58m on July 19th.
Click to expand...

Earlier than expected but pretty bang on with the price.
 
Fr. Todd Unctious said:
Finally. Glad we dug the heels somewhat for once over the fee. Woodward probably would have given them what 70m
Click to expand...
Woodward would probably have conducted the negotiations in exactly the same way. Go in with too high an offer initially, increase the size of the bid without much brinkmanship, walk away at what is already too high a bid then go back for him
 
Status
Not open for further replies.