Mason Mount

[robsblubot 3,263]

11 minutes ago, Mário César said:

what business?

the fact that we sold a player with one year left on his contract for 55 million pounds and who came from a weak season.

isn't it obvious?

about whether the money is well invested, the board will always be criticized or not for that.

if, next year, the reinforcements play well and the team is doing well, fine, but if, by chance, we fail and the selling players start to perform at other clubs, it will be a different story

And? how does that help us? 

The only thing such a high valuation of a player suggests is that you may be wrong in your assessment of his qualities. Consider that we only sold Mount because he refused to sign the deal offered to him... likely because he will get a better one at United. He had plenty of opportunities to stay a Chelsea.

You are making a direct correlation between sales and purchases which does not really exist. We signed Mudryk for an obscene amount without much of issue. Same for a number of other players.

Sorry, but you act as if Chelsea were a club owned by its fans and run accordingly. When in fact, it's owned by billionaires and run accordingly.

[Duppy Conqueror 1,451]

Mount compares more to Joe Cole really but even then love me some JC more.

I've no hard feelings towards Mount,he played his part in memorable moments but even if he's a great success with the Mancs we shouldnt regret selling him. Future big money is better spent elsewhere,if we don't find better for that money we can regret that instead.

[robsblubot 3,263]

3 hours ago, Duppy Conqueror said:

Mount compares more to Joe Cole really but even then love me some JC more.

I've no hard feelings towards Mount,he played his part in memorable moments but even if he's a great success with the Mancs we shouldnt regret selling him. Future big money is better spent elsewhere,if we don't find better for that money we can regret that instead.

Joe was such a good player, but sadly his body gave up fairly early. 😕 

Think Mount is far more athletic than Joe, while Joe was more creative.

Edited June 30, 2023 by robsblubot

[NikkiCFC 7,634]

Yeah, it was about money ofc. He is lucky United is only club left to do such a thing. I mean, just look at their payroll... 

DDG 375k per week 

Sancho 350k 

Varane 340k 

Casemiro 300k 

Martial 250k 

Bruno 240k 

Antony 200k 

And now Rashford is about to sign for 375k and Mount is 250k-300k.

We are changing direction, only Sterling, Enzo and James are over 200k from next season with KK, Kante and Lukaku gone. 

 

[Special Juan 27,111]

Don't give a shit what has gone on, the lad had a banner and has fucked off to Man United- good riddance, was shite like most of them last season, got his so called dream move now.

Positive here we got 55M for a bang average player.

[Mhsc 676]

This whole thread is worth a read before judging the Mason Mount situation, explains how he has paid for PR to try to control the narrative and his link to Matt Law who is on the pay roll to write good press for him

 

[King Kante 1,341]

On 29/06/2023 at 19:44, nyikolajevics said:

It’s been long time since I haven’t seen use term “Lampard-level” as a positive example..

True though, however, Lampard peaked at the age of 25-31, not under 24. 
 

I am ok with Kova going to City, but regarding Havertz and Mount I fear they will peak at our rivals.

Most players don't peak until that age. Drogba and Costa didn't either. 

[Cosmin 2,484]

8 hours ago, Mhsc said:

This whole thread is worth a read before judging the Mason Mount situation, explains how he has paid for PR to try to control the narrative and his link to Matt Law who is on the pay roll to write good press for him

 

Fucking Musk doesn’t let you open twitter links without having an account anymore

[Vesper 27,435]

2 hours ago, Cosmin said:

Fucking Musk doesn’t let you open twitter links without having an account anymore

Twitter has started blocking unregistered users

https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/30/23779764/twitter-blocks-unregistered-users-account-tweets

If you want to browse tweets, user profiles, and comment threads on the web, then you need to be signed in to a Twitter account.

[Magic Lamps 11,473]

2 hours ago, King Kante said:

Most players don't peak until that age. Drogba and Costa didn't either. 

It really depends. So many hype players peak before 25 these days. Maybe it is because of early fame and money that satures them, maybe it is because the game has become faster and more demanding on the body. A factor is probably also bc they get thrown into full seasons earlier. Just look at many of our former players. RLC surely peaked 2018 and it is probably save to say already he will never recover that level. Same goes for Timo. Peaked the season before he joined us witht hose 28 goals. Some of us maybe remember the times when academy graduates Miroslav Stoch, Josh McEachran and Fabio Borini were supposed to be our future. The former peaked at 20 on loan to Enschede where he contributed massively to an unlikely eredivisie title. The other two arguably never really peaked or stagnated once they left.

In the end, it does not matter when they peak but how long they can maintain us. Only absolute top players can maintain their peak level 5+ years.

[YorkshireBlue 2,853]

1 hour ago, Magic Lamps said:

It really depends. So many hype players peak before 25 these days. Maybe it is because of early fame and money that satures them, maybe it is because the game has become faster and more demanding on the body. A factor is probably also bc they get thrown into full seasons earlier. Just look at many of our former players. RLC surely peaked 2018 and it is probably save to say already he will never recover that level. Same goes for Timo. Peaked the season before he joined us witht hose 28 goals. Some of us maybe remember the times when academy graduates Miroslav Stoch, Josh McEachran and Fabio Borini were supposed to be our future. The former peaked at 20 on loan to Enschede where he contributed massively to an unlikely eredivisie title. The other two arguably never really peaked or stagnated once they left.

In the end, it does not matter when they peak but how long they can maintain us. Only absolute top players can maintain their peak level 5+ years.

Players peak earlier now because they want that massive contract asap, once they get on 200k to 300k a week they no they have that for 5 years normally, the drive goes they get settled, I'm hoping these performance based contracts stop all that.

[Reddish-Blue 2,238]

1 hour ago, Magic Lamps said:

It really depends. So many hype players peak before 25 these days. Maybe it is because of early fame and money that satures them, maybe it is because the game has become faster and more demanding on the body. A factor is probably also bc they get thrown into full seasons earlier. Just look at many of our former players. RLC surely peaked 2018 and it is probably save to say already he will never recover that level. Same goes for Timo. Peaked the season before he joined us witht hose 28 goals. Some of us maybe remember the times when academy graduates Miroslav Stoch, Josh McEachran and Fabio Borini were supposed to be our future. The former peaked at 20 on loan to Enschede where he contributed massively to an unlikely eredivisie title. The other two arguably never really peaked or stagnated once they left.

In the end, it does not matter when they peak but how long they can maintain us. Only absolute top players can maintain their peak level 5+ years.

Remember Carlo Ancelotti blooding in some of the youngsters in that cup game vs Newcastle (think it was Van Aanholt, McEachran, Kakuta and a few others). 

Never really saw the hype around Stoch or Borini, decent players on their day but if you had to compare academy players, the ones with the most potential in the past few years: CHO, RLC, Solanke, Reece, Mount, Livramento and Colwill (i'm sure there are others that i'm forgetting)

[Mário César 825]

I was reading the article that matt law wrote about mount and there are two points that I would like to talk about.

a) he compares cole's renewal situation with mount's, in that it is not always right to lower the wage structure, since the best players demand high salaries 

the point is that ashley cole, in 2006, was much more of a player than mount will ever be. He already had a very strong history with Arsenal, he had even won two leagues, being part of that epic 2004 team. 

Cole was world class, Mount is not at that level. 

In relation to it being necessary to have a high salary mass because it attracts the best players, once again, it's subjective, and the perfect example of this is United, which pays very high salaries to mediocre players and keeps them at the club and can't sell them because it's an obstacle, paying too much for what the players produced and deserve. 

[Blue Armour 4,176]

2 hours ago, YorkshireBlue said:

Players peak earlier now because they want that massive contract asap, once they get on 200k to 300k a week they no they have that for 5 years normally, the drive goes they get settled, I'm hoping these performance based contracts stop all that.

Only works if all top clubs are prepared to do the same.

Else, we'll just keep losing out in terms of getting top players.

[DDA 9,570]

2 hours ago, Reddish-Blue said:

Remember Carlo Ancelotti blooding in some of the youngsters in that cup game vs Newcastle (think it was Van Aanholt, McEachran, Kakuta and a few others). 

Never really saw the hype around Stoch or Borini, decent players on their day but if you had to compare academy players, the ones with the most potential in the past few years: CHO, RLC, Solanke, Reece, Mount, Livramento and Colwill (i'm sure there are others that i'm forgetting)

I was there at that game.. my word Josh McEachran was superb. Its a real shame how his career ended up going the way it did... he had serious potential.

[Blue Armour 4,176]

10 minutes ago, DDA said:

I was there at that game.. my word Josh McEachran was superb. Its a real shame how his career ended up going the way it did... he had serious potential.

Josh came in as a sub when we were down by a man, and behind by a few goals I think? 

Came in and changed the game (if not the result)

I think loaning a CM player like Josh to lesser sides was a mistake. He is the Fabregas sort of player that links up well with other top class players., to really shine.

And I think we repeated the same mistake by loaning Billy Gilmour out.

These players should have just stayed with our first team and grown as squad players who would eventually break into the first team.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Blue Armour

[Reddish-Blue 2,238]

4 hours ago, Blue Armour said:

Josh came in as a sub when we were down by a man, and behind by a few goals I think? 

Came in and changed the game (if not the result)

I think loaning a CM player like Josh to lesser sides was a mistake. He is the Fabregas sort of player that links up well with other top class players., to really shine.

And I think we repeated the same mistake by loaning Billy Gilmour out.

These players should have just stayed with our first team and grown as squad players who would eventually break into the first team.

Gilmour wanted to be loaned out though, he wanted the game time to develop rather than sit on the bench at Chelsea.  It's just a shame that there wasn't much squad planning going on as Gilmour would have been a handy midfielder to have in the squad heading into next season (with 4 first team midfielders being sold in the last 2 transfer windows). 

[Reddish-Blue 2,238]

7 hours ago, Mário César said:

I was reading the article that matt law wrote about mount and there are two points that I would like to talk about.

a) he compares cole's renewal situation with mount's, in that it is not always right to lower the wage structure, since the best players demand high salaries 

the point is that ashley cole, in 2006, was much more of a player than mount will ever be. He already had a very strong history with Arsenal, he had even won two leagues, being part of that epic 2004 team. 

Cole was world class, Mount is not at that level. 

In relation to it being necessary to have a high salary mass because it attracts the best players, once again, it's subjective, and the perfect example of this is United, which pays very high salaries to mediocre players and keeps them at the club and can't sell them because it's an obstacle, paying too much for what the players produced and deserve. 

Absolutely spot on, Mount's a good player and he'll do well with Ten Hag's system but Ashley Cole was top class, there's no comparison between the two.  Ended up being one of the best signings as he was arguably one of the best LB's in Europe for almost a decade.