Mason Mount's Many Misfortunes (please don't make another waste of money post)

Neither Antony nor Mount were unknown quantities. ETH knew everything about Antony from their time together at Ajax, and the club and fans knew all about Mount as he's been in the PL for several years now.

And despite that, we still went and signed both. For 140m + a combined 400k/week in wages. Unbelievable.
 
marktan said:
Problem is we're letting a manager who decided £80m on Antony was a good idea make signings, yeah anyone that's watched England or Chelsea knows Mounts not worth £60m but we let a manager who saw him play well for vitesse against farmers make the decision

ETH deserves criticism but it's the Muppets above him that hide away and not actually scouting some good players so we wouldn't have to rely on a manager. Sancho, Antony, Mount.. seems like all we do is sign players that have inflated numbers playing on teams that stomp the rest of the league, and in Mounts case a guy that got a lot of his assists from corners. Nobody seems to actually use their eyes and watch players anymore. If ETH overruled the scouts/dof then he needs sacking, if the scouts agreed with ETH then they need sacking. Tbh id bin the scouts/dof regardless because our signings in the last 5 years have been horrendous
Click to expand...
I will be nitpick here. ETH may want these players, but he doesn't decide the fee. They don't have alternative to suggest and choose the easy way by using club transfer budget irresponsibly , so they can keep the head coach happy.

So even if the "directors" try to shift the blame to ETH, these muppets still deserve bigger share of the blame. Let a manager bully you around when your role is supposed to be the boss is a sign of incompetency in the highest order.
 
Last edited:
I thought Mount was a decent player, but one we ultimately didn’t need.

Still feel that way. We are such a mess.
 
I remember the days when AM’s did things like got assists and scored goals. Now it’s all about forced errors and pressing from the front. I preferred football when it was good…
 
Judas said:
The urge to ask what Mason Mount actually does is rising rapidly inside me again :(
Click to expand...
You’re in luck, there’s actually a video by the athletic named exactly that on YouTube. However it fails to really answer the question about from saying, ‘he’s good, trust us on this one’
 
I think it's difficult for any new player to get a footing in this team with the way we're playing at the moment, never mind when you also get injured. I still don't really get why we signed him, but he deserves the season before people start slating him.
 
crossy1686 said:
You’re in luck, there’s actually a video by the athletic named exactly that on YouTube. However it fails to really answer the question about from saying, ‘he’s good, trust us on this one’
Click to expand...
It's a coin-toss with The Athletic; some of it is genuinely illuminating, but close to half of it really is the pseudo l'eau de fart ' oh it's all too subtle for the average fan to comprehend' content, suggesting the kind of impossibly convoluted patterns of play or tactical reasoning that by and large has little to do with a fast-paced PL game where staying in basic shape along with physique/technique and drilled-player understandings (if i have it here, what kind of run are you going to make; if you lose it, how should i cover in the first phase of turnover) to do things in the moment on instinct are far more crucial...

If we're lacking, it's largely because already incoherent instructions about responding to basic scenarios and maintaining lines in order to establish passing options (running in support and creating strategic overloads, before making basic runs off the ball down the inside channel for a low cross etc) and then to deal with turnovers are being transmitted to players who are checked out or potentially unable to carry them out., physically or mentally/psychologically.
 
Conor said:
I think it's difficult for any new player to get a footing in this team with the way we're playing at the moment, never mind when you also get injured. I still don't really get why we signed him, but he deserves the season before people start slating him.
Click to expand...
There is more to the skepticism on Mount. He didn't played well for Chelsea last season. So it's like to add another problem to an list of problem and creating more problem because we overpaid and limit our future budget.

Now this makes paying 110mil for Rice looks like bargain using he 55mil for Mount and Maguire McTominay sale direct to West Ham. Of course, we chose to hoard problem to ourselves. :mad:
 
Are you alright with me joining in on the pile on with you guys by calling him a rat bastard?
 
You look at our midfield here today and he still can't get off the bench. We've just spent over £50m on him. I'm not a fan of his but surely he has to play because being a back-up to a midfield three of McTominay, Eriksen and Bruno is surely not what we had planned.
 
Yagami said:
You look at our midfield here today and he still can't get off the bench. We've just spent over £50m on him. I'm not a fan of his but surely he has to play because being a back-up to a midfield three of McTominay, Eriksen and Bruno is surely not what we had planned.
Click to expand...

It was probabaly Casemiro, Mount, and Bruno, not that this makes any sense either, but perhaps that's why he's not playing.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
It was probabaly Casemiro, Mount, and Bruno, not that this makes any sense either, but perhaps that's why he's not playing.
Click to expand...
Oh, definitely, but I can't believe we spent as much as we did on him to be behind McTominay and Eriksen in the pecking order already.
 
Yagami said:
You look at our midfield here today and he still can't get off the bench. We've just spent over £50m on him. I'm not a fan of his but surely he has to play because being a back-up to a midfield three of McTominay, Eriksen and Bruno is surely not what we had planned.
Click to expand...

It is rather bizarre. He's not been great on the pitch, but then, no-one has.

Is it something ETH is seeing in training? Or was there never a plan to integrate him in the side alongside Bruno?

I thought the latter to be inconceivable over the summer based on how hard ETH pushed for him. Surely he had something in mind!

Apparently not...
 
The Mount thread before we signed is fascinating. Was slated at Chelsea by everyone on here. Then he signs and it's oh he works hard, system player, all this nonsense. The club and supporters get a hard on about shiny new toys regardless of the quality
 
Yeah this signing looking more and more confusing.

If it's a one off, sure. But this is a consistent pattern now whereby Mount is holding the bench. I think he's a tidy player but where is he going to fit in if he can't get into this team in this game?

It's the perfect game for him too. Energy needed in the midfield over someone like Eriksen.

Looks like a waste of funds so far. Classic United.
 
What was the point in signing him if he had no plan on how to use him as a first choice player? Actually absurd. What a shocking signing this was, like throwing darts at a dartboard blindfolded.
 
Leaving Mount on the bench again, after being so insistent on signing him in a summer where we had a considerably limited budget is a really bad look for Ten Hag. I'm still not for sacking him yet, but this situation reflects far worse on Ten Hag than it does on Mount.
 
Yagami said:
Oh, definitely, but I can't believe we spent as much as we did on him to be behind McTominay and Eriksen in the pecking order already.
Click to expand...

I guess he could only play instead of Eriksen in this lineup, but the manager must think it wouldn't work with Mctominay.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he bought Mount, but it looks like he just doesn't fit in the starting lineup as most people said, at least while Bruno plays every game anyway.

You'd think given how terrible the wingers have been he'd even try him out there to get him the team.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
I guess he could only play instead of Eriksen in this lineup, but the manager must think it wouldn't work with Mctominay.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he bought Mount, but it looks like he just doesn't fit in the starting lineup as most people said, at least while Bruno plays every game anyway.

You'd think given how terrible the wingers have been he'd even try him out there to get him the team.
Click to expand...

But you don't start Eriksen in high tempo games. He doesn't and cannot run. It just exposes our already weak midfield, you can get away playing him as an attacking midfield with two DMs behind. But we never do that.

The whole signing is just absurd, what a waste of money. Why not spend the money from Mount on an actual fecking DM in the first place.
 
AnotherLondonManc said:
It is rather bizarre. He's not been great on the pitch, but then, no-one has.

Is it something ETH is seeing in training? Or was there never a plan to integrate him in the side alongside Bruno?

I thought the latter to be inconceivable over the summer based on how hard ETH pushed for him. Surely he had something in mind!

Apparently not...
Click to expand...
The plan was the setup in the first two games of the season

Took a few games to realise it wouldn’t work.
 
Ole'sgunnarwin said:
The Mount thread before we signed is fascinating. Was slated at Chelsea by everyone on here. Then he signs and it's oh he works hard, system player, all this nonsense. The club and supporters get a hard on about shiny new toys regardless of the quality
Click to expand...

Sums up our fanbase. Club makes a bad decision - they back it, to the hilt.

The obviously bad decision is proven to be a bad decision. Surprised Pikachu face
 
Whether you agreed with the signing or not, based on the ability of the player, you can at least go fair enough, the manager clearly wanted him and he'll be an important player in the system.

But no. Apparently he's not important at all. He can't even get a start in a shit midfield. Which then begs the question why the feck did we prioritise a player who in fact wasn't important, and cost £55m, plus £250k per week, despite being in the last year of their contract?

Who is overseeing these appalling decisions and letting it happen?
 
AndySmith1990 said:
Whether you agreed with the signing or not, based on the ability of the player, you can at least go fair enough, the manager clearly wanted him and he'll be an important player in the system.

But no. Apparently he's not important at all. He can't even get a start in a shit midfield. Which then begs the question why the feck did we prioritise a player who in fact wasn't important, and cost £55m, plus £250k per week, despite being in the last year of their contract?

Who is overseeing these appalling decisions and letting it happen?
Click to expand...
Have to agree, even more confusing when you realise that his fee could have been added to the Hojlund fee and we could've had a real shot at Harry Kane.
 
I really want journalists to start asking difficult questions on Mount to ETH, like why is the no7 (our most revered number) routinely on the bench? It was clearly his signing.
 
Skills said:
Sums up our fanbase. Club makes a bad decision - they back it, to the hilt.

The obviously bad decision is proven to be a bad decision. Surprised Pikachu face
Click to expand...

That's the issue; there's an element on here that'll try sugar coat literally everything. Absolutely no one rated Mount before we signed him, yet you had some trying to make out we signed a gem.
 
Robbie Boy said:
That's the issue; there's an element on here that'll try sugar coat literally everything. Absolutely no one rated Mount before we signed him, yet you had some trying to make out we signed a gem.
Click to expand...

It's not even that I didn't rate him, it's that he was obviously an attacking midfielder and we had no need for another one of those. I'm not a qualified scout. How could I see it and John Murtough not? Bizarre.
 
#07 said:
It's not even that I didn't rate him, it's that he was obviously an attacking midfielder and we had no need for another one of those. I'm not a qualified scout. How could I see it and John Murtough not? Bizarre.
Click to expand...

Yeah seemed totally unnecessary.
 
Robbie Boy said:
That's the issue; there's an element on here that'll try sugar coat literally everything. Absolutely no one rated Mount before we signed him, yet you had some trying to make out we signed a gem.
Click to expand...
Despite ten years of evidence to the contrary, there's a contingent here who think that every decision the club makes is part of some master plan and that those who disagree are too stupid to see it.
 
Robbie Boy said:
That's the issue; there's an element on here that'll try sugar coat literally everything. Absolutely no one rated Mount before we signed him, yet you had some trying to make out we signed a gem.
Click to expand...
That’s the same element that blindly believes any crap that comes out from any managers. They don’t even have to be successful, just being manager is enough.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Despite ten years of evidence to the contrary, there's a contingent here who think that every decision the club makes is part of some master plan and that those who disagree are too stupid to see it.
Click to expand...

The amount of annoying tacticos making long posts and threads about how much he’d improve us was puke worthy. Even worse was all of the chelsea fans trying to tell me how great he was too
 
Ole'sgunnarwin said:
The Mount thread before we signed is fascinating. Was slated at Chelsea by everyone on here. Then he signs and it's oh he works hard, system player, all this nonsense. The club and supporters get a hard on about shiny new toys regardless of the quality
Click to expand...

Id like to be on record as one of the annoying few thatwas moaning about it the entire time we chased him :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.