Mason Mount | Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Am I the only one baffled about Caicedo being seen as the Mount alternative and wondering how it could possibly be the case? They're so drastically different, I can't see how Ten Hag sees Caicedo as a logical 2nd choice. They're so different.

But then I suppose we bought Casemiro last year, maybe/in theory/possibly after failing to get De Jong, and again totally different players.
 
gajender said:
Where would walkaway play what's his best position , but jokes apart there must be other targets we can pursue in the meantime lets not rescind the offer but let Chelsea stew over this a bit we can always raise the bid if we really want to get this done .

But I think this would get done soon at 55 m Guaranteed with no further add-ons .
Click to expand...
Who are our other targets? Because we always seem to put all our eggs in 1 basket. We never talk to a few teams at once and then work out the best outcome, the best player and the one that fits the best financially.
 
Castia said:
Thats a bit unfair Antony was ok for his first season and we clearly had no budget in January so he took Weghorst on loan just to give him an extra body upfront

On Mount - we aren’t walking away we have zero backups lined up as usual.
Click to expand...
Don't think that's true, we've been linked to loads of "mobile 8's".
 
Judas said:
Am I the only one baffled about Caicedo being seen as the Mount alternative and wondering how it could possibly be the case? They're so drastically different, I can't see how Ten Hag sees Caicedo as a logical 2nd choice. They're so different.

But then I suppose we bought Casemiro last year, maybe/in theory/possibly after failing to get De Jong, and again totally different players.
Click to expand...
No I agree. Completely different player to Mount, that’s probably why we haven’t got strong links with him. Ten Hag is obviously desperate for Mount but if it can’t be done then the scouting team need to find players with similar Attributes.
 
Mainoldo said:
This. If it was a player the majority liked a lot more would be talking this way.

Just imagine this was Caicedo and Chelsea are Brighton guys. :lol:

I think we can all agree it’s over and no1 is walking away empty handed.
Click to expand...
Thats the problem. He is not that good. He is an average system player.
 
Woodzy said:
Antony has done okay, we simply just overpaid. Weghorst was a desperation signing because we literally had no money to actually bring a proper striker in.
Click to expand...

Okay and now? We bring in Mount, we simply just overpay. And do we have money now to actually bring in a proper striker or will we just act like Martial and Weghorst are okay and not complete division 2 players
 
Adnan said:
Unfortunately my targets end up going to other clubs after I start the hype well in advance. Caicedo, Guimaraes and Tchoumeni etc..
Click to expand...
Need to stop hyping them up, you’ve probably got scouts nabbing your targets :lol:
 
Mainoldo said:
Kovacic cost them £40m and Havertz I’m sure cost them £75m. They will have to offset the remaining cost off what the buying clubs have paid for them. Not sure if this is exactly how it works but it’s very similar to what I’m saying. That all said selling these players doesn’t give them enough money to spend £80m on Caicedo.

They need the Mount deal to go through and the more they can get for Mount the more they can legitimately spend this summer.
Click to expand...

I honestly think you’ve misunderstood how FFP and book value works. It’s one of the most boring things about football but I guess it has to be discussed sometimes. Chelsea signed Havertz for around £77M (including all the add-ons he achieved) on a 5 year contract. That fee amortised over the 5 years gave him an annual book value of £15.4M (though his initial book value was £14.4M)

He has 2 years remaining on that 5 year deal so his remaining book value is £30.8M. He was supposedly on a salary of £300K a week, which is around £15M a year, and with 2 years remaining on his contract, you can probably guess where I’m going with this. Freeing ourselves of his remaining wages could probably cover the remaining 2 years of his book value, making the incoming transfer fee as close to pure profit as it could get.

I’m no FFP or accounting whizz, so I invite anyone to correct me if I’ve screwed up the maths or if I’m the one who has misunderstood the concept.

You’re of course right that Mount represents pure profit but I don’t think it’s correct to say Chelsea absolutely have to sell Mount to fund a signing like Caicedo.
 
Yet another awful player for a disgusting fee, we are the worst negotiators in the world.
He will instantly join our list of unflushable players with no value on too high wages to ever sell.
 
DJ_21 said:
Who are our other targets? Because we always seem to put all our eggs in 1 basket. We never talk to a few teams at once and then work out the best outcome, the best player and the one that fits the best financially.
Click to expand...
You may be right but I do think there are other Midfielders we must be keeping tabs on whose name would suddenly appear if this deal stalls .
 
Judas said:
Am I the only one baffled about Caicedo being seen as the Mount alternative and wondering how it could possibly be the case? They're so drastically different, I can't see how Ten Hag sees Caicedo as a logical 2nd choice. They're so different.

But then I suppose we bought Casemiro last year, maybe/in theory/possibly after failing to get De Jong, and again totally different players.
Click to expand...

Is Caicedo definitely the Mount alternative? Aside from the usual "monitoring" has anything else been said?
 
If there was any truth to the last bid being final, it needs to be exactly that. The value is already inflated at this point and we look foolish if we say we won’t negotiate further then meet them next week? I worry the manager still has too much input on who to sign, even at City they tell Pep no if a player starts to look poor value/unaffordable.
 
DJ_21 said:
Like a Chelsea fan as already said on here they’ll make sales from other players. Not just Mount. It’s not like they’re relying on us and if they were then surely they’d of accepted our first bid of like 45m for him. They’d of made a profit no matter what so why would they risk not selling him if they thought they had to in order to sign Caicedo?
Click to expand...
Because everybody knows we are fecking stupid in transfers and they want to get a piece of that.
 
Judas said:
Am I the only one baffled about Caicedo being seen as the Mount alternative and wondering how it could possibly be the case? They're so drastically different, I can't see how Ten Hag sees Caicedo as a logical 2nd choice. They're so different.

But then I suppose we bought Casemiro last year, maybe/in theory/possibly after failing to get De Jong, and again totally different players.
Click to expand...

It is peculiar. De Jong, Casemiro and Mount are all very different.

The funny thing is we have all the tactical analysis from couch experts, saying "ah yes, ETH needs de Jong for this reason" before he then signs a completely different player in Casemiro and then follows up with another profile of player completely the following summer. At this stage I honestly just feel like we're trying to sign players the he or our scouts rate and just make something work.
 
Josep Dowling said:
If Mount had 3/4 years left on his contract I would still think £55m plus add ons was expensive. He doesn’t start for Chelsea anymore, heck even Southgate’s love affair has stopped and guess what England can finally score goals again.
Click to expand...
He was starting regularly for both Chelsea and England up until he got injured around the beginning of March :confused:
 
nufc-forever said:
It is amazing how many posters said he is rubbish in the beginning of the thread 4 months ago and now the same posters saying he is a great player, even BY FAR better than macallister .. I remember when Newcastle played brighton and he wasn’t in the lineup it gave us a huge boost. On the other hand when mount benched against us in the last game of the season- no one even noticed. Mount is average at best and is not worth more than 20m regardless his contract situation
Click to expand...
Maybe no one noticed because he was actually injured at the time?
 
WeePat said:
I honestly think you’ve misunderstood how FFP and book value works. It’s one of the most boring things about football but I guess it has to be discussed sometimes. Chelsea signed Havertz for around £77M (including all the add-ons he achieved) on a 5 year contract. That fee amortised over the 5 years gave him an annual book value of £15.4M (though his initial book value was £14.4M)

He has 2 years remaining on that 5 year deal so his remaining book value is £30.8M. He was supposedly on a salary of £300K a week, which is around £15M a year, and with 2 years remaining on his contract, you can probably guess where I’m going with this. Freeing ourselves of his remaining wages could probably cover the remaining 2 years of his book value, making the incoming transfer fee as close to pure profit as it could get.

I’m no FFP or accounting whizz, so I invite anyone to correct me if I’ve screwed up the maths or if I’m the one who has misunderstood the concept.

You’re of course right that Mount represents pure profit but I don’t think it’s correct to say Chelsea absolutely have to sell Mount to fund a signing like Caicedo.
Click to expand...
Not an expert either but
I think only this years wages count for this years FFP, so it would knock 15m off. It wont show up in next years FFP either obviously so your kind of right.
Funding a signing like Caicedo and a striker without selling mount is probably a stretch? Or not, i'm not that familiar with your finances.
 
This transfer deal just highlights the utter incompetence of our scouting department where they are not in a position to offer ETH with alternatives. ETH knows it, we know it and most importantly, Chelsea know it! Teams can always have us over the barrel as they know we'll keep coming back! Just look at the transfer over the last few years. I would love to think that ETH can draw a line in the sand and tell Chavs to sod off with their demands, and if Mount himself is intent on coming, they'll return themselves cap in hand!
 
Castia said:
Thats a bit unfair Antony was ok for his first season and we clearly had no budget in January so he took Weghorst on loan just to give him an extra body upfront

On Mount - we aren’t walking away we have zero backups lined up as usual.
Click to expand...
 
Chief123 said:
It’s not often you have multiple clubs bid for the same player at the same time. That’s because clubs scope out whether the player will join them beforehand and also what kind of fee the club will be looking for.

It’s already been reported though that Liverpool and Arsenal wanted Mount but he chose to go to Utd.
Click to expand...
That should be even more advantageous for us. Mount wants to join us, obviously we will be the highest payers in the PL or anywhere in Europe for that matter.

If they had done something like this to City for Kovacic transfer, City definitely would have walked as they are not desperate. Chelsea made it easy for them but making us run rings around them.
 
redIndianDevil said:
That should be even more advantageous for us. Mount wants to join us, obviously we will be the highest payers in the PL or anywhere in Europe for that matter.

If they had done something like this to City for Kovacic transfer, City definitely would have walked as they are not desperate. Chelsea made it easy for them but making us run rings around them.
Click to expand...
We can’t really blame Chelsea for our silly spending. We’ve built a rod for our own back. Hopefully that will change with new owners, but right now Chelsea can ask for what they think we’ll end up paying anyway.
 
Withnail said:
Everyone's a financial expert and knows exactly how much each player is worth too. I'd love to be so confident about things I have zero experience of.
Click to expand...
Because all the “experienced” people running the club have made amazing transfers for us so far.

What is the point of this comment in a fan forum designed specifically for fans to opine about our club if only experts are allowed to say something?
 
redIndianDevil said:
Because all the “experienced” people running the club have made amazing transfers for us so far.

What is the point of this comment in a fan forum designed specifically for fans to opine about our club if only experts are allowed to say something?
Click to expand...
He wants us to agree on everything the "experts" at the club do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.