100% agreed. This is a fantastic captain hindsight thread. And I don't even think they were signed by their respective clubs to play in the same positions anyway.
Recruitment blooper No. 129...Mount v Palmer
- Thread starter sixdwarf
- Start date
It's probably been said by every other poster here , and I can't be bothered to read through them all, but City would have never sold him to us, so it doesn't matter.
That would make this thread even more irrelevant then if that was possible.
Nope, I think many would recognize that it's actually a shrewd move considering how highly rated he was already and the glimpses he'd already shown for City. A player like that that "proves himself" costs double or triple what Chelsea paid.
But it's pointless because as others have said City would never sell to us, certainly not their top young prospect that they were trying to keep in the first place
They sold Jesus to ArsenalAs if City would have sold him to us
Mason Mount started his career at OT in a pretty shambolic team and combining that with his injury means he's never been in a position to make his mark. I'll judge him when he gets a decent run alongside ten players who've grasped what the word team means.
Last edited:
Lost me at Chelsea reject, don't really see the point of the thread. Disappointing season for Mount but that's been very much down to injuries.
I don't think anyone expected Palmer to have such a good season either.
I don't think anyone expected Palmer to have such a good season either.
Never really understand when people point out "look who we would have bought."
So what, it's not clever. There's 200 players around Europe that would have performed better than Mount, it's not about specifics, especially when none of them were actually needed including a type like Palmer.
We identified the wrong "hole" in the squad and then we identified the wrong player to fill that wrongfully identified profile. End of story. Hopefully he improves to at least contribute something but the rationale was completely wrong and that's the main blunder. We have to be more decisive and clinical about what is needed, what the style is and what the priorities are.
So what, it's not clever. There's 200 players around Europe that would have performed better than Mount, it's not about specifics, especially when none of them were actually needed including a type like Palmer.
We identified the wrong "hole" in the squad and then we identified the wrong player to fill that wrongfully identified profile. End of story. Hopefully he improves to at least contribute something but the rationale was completely wrong and that's the main blunder. We have to be more decisive and clinical about what is needed, what the style is and what the priorities are.
Problem with Mount is not on his fees, or somewhat injury prone. Problem is on WHERE to put him? If Eriksen is a headache already, who is at least free signing and a decent backup, is Mount a Eriksen backup? At his age, his experience, his fee/wage?
Palmer would replace Antony any time, for a suitable position, but City would never allow him joining a closed rival of course. In fact, he can displace Rashford as well.
He'll be at OT when his Chelsea contract is up I'm sure of it.
Absolutely.
I'm not really a fan of the player, much less paying 60M for him, as he's tidy and works hard but there are damn near always Spaniards who do that for cheaper who Madrid and Barca turn their nose up at, like say Soler who went from Valencia to PSG for under 20M is probably available again and looks a similar quality player. Inter got 2 somewhat similar players in Calhanoglu and Mkhitaryan on frees for god's sake (Calhanoglu has improved but even if he hadn't, he was hardly miles off from Mount).
But it might have made theoretical sense if Bruno had demanded out and went somewhere for a huge fee and we spent that money elsewhere. Or if we were committed to a 3-4-2-1 system with wingbacks. But instead it's just adding a decent #10 who has shown with England he's not a great fit as a #8.
It was a really strange move.
I'm not even sure this is true, it's simply the combination of the initial 3 (Bruno, Mount, Case) was so so clearly not going to work. I think he could work as an 8..
As it stands though and where we are with recruitment, I don't see why we aren't just going with Garncho - Hojlund - Mount as a front three. Bruno - Mainoo and a new DM (this will be a big fee) behind. Feel like Mount's skillset is defensively as good as Antony's but he's surely got a bit more goal threat in his locker and can cross a ball from that side.
Did Chelsea put him on an 8 year contract? Or whatever it is they do.
7 years with a club option of a further year.
How has a thread about a hypothetical that would never have happened managed to reach page 2?
But did we really need an 8? I'm not sure we did.
We had Scott McTominay who can break from midfield, we had Mainoo waiting in the wings which apparently ETH had already identified could play a key role. Bruno can play 8 to some extent.
We pissed around pursuing Mount and then last minute got in Amrabat on loan for a position where we have one aging player. If we were going to use funds on midfield that would have made more sense. Not even sure this is hindsight, we never needed a Mason Mount and many correctly cast doubts on it and it's been proven correct, although obviously he has struggled with injury and can produce more.
We definitely did, it was just a bit of a left field choice of player. I think we all thought it would be more of a well known CM who obviously wouldn't have the added issue of learning the role on the job.
We need DM, CB, RW, LA this window minimum in my opinion. I'm expecting the DM and RW to eat up most of the budget as well.
Yeah but what if we had signed Steven Gerrard?????
Wow. He’s there for a while then.