It wasn’t a your wrong question. I was just putting it out there. Yes Caicedo fits with what I was saying.
Mason Mount | Confirmed
- Thread starter UnitedSofa
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
I would say there's a key contextual difference between a manager being convinced to make another player the main target and a manager having to settle for someone who isn't the agreed main target.
That doesn't mean he shouldn't have to settle sometimes, nor does it mean it can't work out for the best, but Salah isn't really the comparison.
That doesn't mean he shouldn't have to settle sometimes, nor does it mean it can't work out for the best, but Salah isn't really the comparison.
Will it be a show of strong hand if we finally splurge 60+5 m after all the dilly-dallying?
It's quite easy to set a time frame for this actually. Everybody knows DDG's contract runs out next week if United don't extend it.
We won't have to , it would get done for 55m guaranteed no add ons .
This has nothing to do with budgets and everything to do with the club not wanting to be ripped off.
let’s say you see an online deal for a midrange TV for £1000. You head in store to purchase as you have your heart set on this model but find that the deal is over and the store is now pricing the TV at £1500. You speak with the manager and they won’t negotiate the price.
You then see a premium TV at £1700. More than you budgeted for but far better value than the midrange TV at £1500.
What would you do? Buy the midrange TV at an inflated price but feel ripped off by the store? Or pay a bit extra and go for the premium option?
let’s say you see an online deal for a midrange TV for £1000. You head in store to purchase as you have your heart set on this model but find that the deal is over and the store is now pricing the TV at £1500. You speak with the manager and they won’t negotiate the price.
You then see a premium TV at £1700. More than you budgeted for but far better value than the midrange TV at £1500.
What would you do? Buy the midrange TV at an inflated price but feel ripped off by the store? Or pay a bit extra and go for the premium option?
Anyone believing we're genuinely doing a Lukaku on Caicedo is just deluded. We simply don't have the money.
We do. Brighton apparently want £70m upfront. I’m sure Chelsea will be on some 5 year contract thing promising Brighton instalments over 3 years. We can just offer a little less but over a 2 year period of upfront using what we would have gave Mount for Chelsea.
I doubt Chelsea’s cash reserves is currently more than ours. This is a team with zero European football next year. That’s missing guaranteed revenue.
But Mount was never "on offer" for a lower price. In fact he started at the premium price if we're using your analogy. In which case why not just go for the premium product right away if there's budget for it?
Passing on this and using the money elsewhere in July would be the first big positive thing in this window.
Our Premium product is clearly Mason Mount!! What’s hard to understand.
Explain to me how. And in terms of cash, our cash is coming from future revenue.
We have a budget of about £200m after sales which are by no means guaranteed.
If we pay 80m (that's what I believe Brighton would want, not 70), where's the money for a striker, centre back and another midfielder/striker coming from?
Who's dropping off the list? Is it just striker (Hojlund or Kane) and centre back? I'd actually take it but I just don't believe we'll do that.
You’ve got me man
What if you’d budgeted for £1800 for the TV and a top sound bar to go with it, but the £1500 price now means you can’t also buy the sound bar. Then you’d surely jump on the £1800 premium TV as it’s still within your budget?
I don’t know, I’m talking bollocks. God only knows what goes through the minds of our negotiators with their scattergun approach
Yes that’s probably been true but in general I don’t think we under value them as such, I think we tend to hold on to players too long and I think our fans over exaggerate the level some of them are at
Not last season though when ten hag had joined the premier league
I don’t think we’ll sign a CB. Shaw can more than adequately cover CB.
A Goalkeeper, Caicedo and a top striker fixes a lot of issues this summer.
I agree here both in terms of transfers and loan experience (a major part of ensuring future transfer value)
Simply put. You hopefully are old enough and pay bills. You have a fixed 2 year contract with your energy supplier Which to them I cashed at 4k from you over 2 years.
You can then decide on payment terms you could pay month or quarterly monthly sounds better to them as they get their money in earlier. Quarterly they might put you on a direct debit either way their books still say they have received 4k from you.
Switch it back to football.. when you seen budgets of £100m, £75m for Newcastle… it’s all just how much of the fixed transfer fee they can give upfront straight away. Otherwise how on earth does anyone believe we could have got Mason Mount and Harry Kane in one window.
Chelsea neither Man Utd will give Brighton 70m straight up. But what United might be able to promise is out of our £100m cash budget we can give you £40m in one transaction. Leaving us with £60m to get a striker and goal keeper.
Inter still owe us money for Lukaku for F sake you think it on our books that the money hasn’t been accounted for?
So you don't think there's any analysisnthta goes into a signing. Just when the manager saw them last?
Eesh.
He is in the final year of his contract and has rejected multiple contract offers and wants to join us. That was one of the main incentives for us to go after him. That why he was “on offer”.
If we get Caicedo and a top striker the other positions are less important. We can wait another year to get Raya and Mount on frees. If we can't get Kim I don't see the point in going for a cb this season anyway. We have enough cover in Lindelof and Shaw. The cb we get in should be good enough to replace Varane. Caicedo being able to play 6 or 8 also makes it less important to get another cm imo. We should try trusting our scout team for once for these less important positions imo. We might get a gem like a Caicedo or Kim earlier that way.
This is nonsense.
I‘d go for the 100£ option. TV‘s are not footballers.
It won't be 80 straight off of the books though will it?Aren't these deals split over the duration of the contract so 80 could actually be 15m or so a year over 5 years.
I am still not convinced. Are you saying we can stretch our budget further because we'll be paying in installments? That's a fair point but you forget we also still owe money on transfers from previous windows (probably not as much tbf since we paid cash for Antony at least).
I think financially we won't be able to get all our targets but it might work if we prioritise.
Look, I agree. I think we should go for the Liverpool approach (until we get new owners at least) but I just don't believe the club would do it. I'd take one Caicedo over Mount and Rabiot, that's for sure.
See other response. We don't just get the benefit of instalments, we have old fees to pay. Granted, I've not gone over the books to see how much but I think some of you are wildly optimistic.
Hope you're right though.
Have to say I like the fact club's refusing to pay more than 55M for Mount, we've been mugged off too many times and can't allow it to happen yet again.
He's got one year left on his contract. 55 million pounds is maximum Chelsea should get.
He's got one year left on his contract. 55 million pounds is maximum Chelsea should get.
I like Mount a lot but I agree. Given his contract situation 45 - 50m would be about right. I understand there is a Utd tax but anything more than 5m extra is too much. We need to start getting strict about this Utd tax nonsense.
The rage when we do in fact spend more than 55m on Mount is going to be quite something.
Is he even worth £50m for a season though?
Most transfer fees are paid in installments so when it's reported Club has 100-150 m budget then it simply means Club would make further outlay of that amount that year on new signings.
Payments structure could be flexible depending on how Comfortable Club is with its Cash Flow situation but overall commitment would be in that Ballpark irrespective of how fees are spread out .
which would be absolutely deserved. Which idiot pays more than 55m on a player who wouldnt make the team significantly better and has one year left on his contract? Getting him for free would be a whole different story and that's why we should go away and wait until January.
Really hard to put a figure on situations like this because you have to consider that if we waited and went for him on a free then
1. Players typically ask for higher wages and sign on fees when on a free.
2. You have a bigger risk of him going somewhere else.
3. You lose out on his contribution for a year.
I'd say if we could sign him for 50m then it's a good signing. Others seem to think he's rubbish and that even signing him on a free would still be poor. All about opinions but really hard to give a specific valuation, honestly for me the 50m thing is mostly just something that feels right in my head.
With our club... yes, surely ajax wasn't scouting him when ten hag was there and Mount was back playing for Chelsea as it would have been pointless. Ten hag has form from last summer of going for players that were either Dutch or played in the Dutch league at some point
You misspelled ‘Yesh’.
For your analogy to work you would need to have more accurate figures. If you have your heart set on the £1000 tv in this case the price would now be more like £1100, despite it starting out at £1500 you decide its too much above your budget so instead go next door and buy a projector for £2.5k while at the same time claiming you have actually saved £100. Oh and when you get it home you find out that your wife still wants a telly.
I think EtH wants a #6/8 and a #10 and we're spend to spend big on one of them, maybe either go with youth or a cheaper player for the other.
So the pivot to Caicedo makes sense to me.
Kudus could be the backup budget alternate to Mount if we buy Caicedo. Similarly, Ambrabat or Rabiot maybe the budget Caicedo alternative if we get Mount.
I dont think we're looking at Caicedo to play the same role that Mount would in the team.
So the pivot to Caicedo makes sense to me.
Kudus could be the backup budget alternate to Mount if we buy Caicedo. Similarly, Ambrabat or Rabiot maybe the budget Caicedo alternative if we get Mount.
I dont think we're looking at Caicedo to play the same role that Mount would in the team.
Funadmentally, and most simplistically, there are two ways to play three in midfield. A regular triangle and an inverted triangle. A regular triangle gives you two players at the base and one at the tip, an inverted triangle gives you one at the base and two at the top. This is at least according to the Dutch philosophy of football.
The Caicedo vs Mount debate is essentially a debate on the shape of the midfield and the orientation of that triangle. ETH where he can has attempted to play the inverted triangle. Indeed our best performance of the season, in terms of control and shape, probably came in the 2-0 vs Spurs at Old Trafford where we pressed high with an inverted triangle.
It is automatically assumed that an inverted triangle provides less defensive strength, and this can certainly be true if you sit off as a team and play to the counter attack. But if you are possession orientated, a direction ETH clearly wants to move us in, then the inverted triangle allows you to press much higher up the pitch, it also gives you more creative options in the final third.
With Mount I believed you’d see Casemiro as a traditional 6 and Mount and Bruno as aggressive hybrid 8/10s. Able to press high and hard out of possession, and provide creative stimuli in possession. As well as late runs into the box. With Caicedo I believed we’d see Casemiro as a 6, with a little more license to go forward, Caicedo as a hybrid 6/8, as he’s naturally more defensively orientated, and Bruno as a true 10. The issue there is that it becomes more predictable to mark our primary creative player out of the game - as there is only one - and it reduces (although doesn’t eliminate - our ability to press high up the pitch. Defending is done a little deeper, and a greater emphasis is put on counter attacking.
Eriksen is a bit of a conundrum in this role, because while he sits deeper than he did earlier in his career, and isn’t a natural presser, from those deep positions he has an ability to pass between the lines that our other midfielders don’t. It’s an ability that Caicedo doesn’t possess in anything like the same quantity. Hence player Caicedo and Casemiro together would necessitate a very different tactical approach to Casemiro and Mount.
The beauty of Casemiro is that he is good enough to play as a lone 6, without a semi permanent partner next to him to share the defensive load. His signing is a facilitator of a more front foot forward approach. Yet signing Caicedo over Mount betrays that ambition.
I am a big proponent of the Mount signing, not because of the individual quality of the player (which I think is much, much higher than many on here give him credit for) but because of how he would fit into our system. And at the end of the day it’s all about how the team works together, not the individuals comprising it.
I think signing Caicedo will lead to a prosaic midfield and a much more predictable approach to the game. I also take great direction from the fact that Mount is clearly ETH’s first choice which says two things (1) he is convinced of the quality of the player and (2) most importantly, he’s identified him as the type of player he needs to implement his desired system. Frankly I think we should all be behind that.
I have said it many Times in this thread, but I’ll say it again. The Mount vs Caicedo debate isn’t just a debate on individual players, it is also an unwitting referendum on how the team plays. People so fervently saying “walk away” and proposing completely different types of players like Caicedo, aren’t just saying they want a different player, they are also saying they want the team to play in a different way. That’s just bonkers to me, and I am fairly sure most don’t realise what they are doing. I am equally sure it will become apparent when half way through the season the same people are saying we have no creativity and don’t press high enough up the pitch.
Who is mid range and who is premium in your analogy?
I pray for this deal to crash.
Agreed, but still not what we truly need and clearly, United were trying to go for a cheap option, which is not what we require, we require the best possible to enhance and build on Casimero's level of performance.
It's truly sad, that we have wasted so much money out of desperation over the last 10 years, we are now struggling to afford top players. (Thanks Glazers for holding out selling the club!)
- Status