Top priority?

According to The Guardian, Chelsea officials are prepared to make a compromise with United on Mount's £65million valuation, with 'little to gain' from him returning to Cobham training ground in a few days time.

According to the telegraph Chelsea last week rejected a third £50 million, plus £5 million in add-ons, (first United bid was 40m) bid for Mount from United and suggested a face-to-face meeting over the situation as they countered the offer with a demand for £65 million.

United remain adamant they will not go near Chelsea’s £65 million valuation, made up of £57 million, plus £8 million in add-ons, for a player with one year remaining on his contract.

It's United that caved in, not Chelsea.

United massively upped their bid last minute, going from a 40m bid to paying 55m+5m, while Chelsea climbed down by about 5m.

comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
According to The Guardian, Chelsea officials are prepared to make a compromise with United on Mount's £65million valuation, with 'little to gain' from him returning to Cobham training ground in a few days time.

According to the telegraph Chelsea last week rejected a third £50 million, plus £5 million in add-ons, (first United bid was 40m) bid for Mount from United and suggested a face-to-face meeting over the situation as they countered the offer with a demand for £65 million.

United remain adamant they will not go near Chelsea’s £65 million valuation, made up of £57 million, plus £8 million in add-ons, for a player with one year remaining on his contract.

It's United that caved in, not Chelsea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Chelsea’s starting point was £70m plus add-ons but they lowered their asking price to £65m last Friday. Key sources suggested that United would look to meet Chelsea somewhere in the middle this week.'

£55m plus add-ons rather than the initial £70m plus add-ons Chelsea wanted according to the same paper you quoted.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/29/mason-mount-set-to-join-manchester-united-from-chelsea-for-60m

All irrelevant to the point about Chelsea's valuation of the player changing wef 1 July anyway.

So Chelsea's starting point was 65-70m. Whichever way you look at it they didn't really climb down any more than usual. United came a long way to get Chelsea to say yes. I don't think that's debatable tbh.

comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
So Chelsea's starting point was 65-70m. Whichever way you look at it they didn't really climb down any more than usual. United came a long way to get Chelsea to say yes. I don't think that's debatable tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea starting point: £70m plus add-ons.
United starting point: £40m.
End point: £55m plus add-ons.

All from your source.

Considering the relatively meagre size of the add-ons, I think most neutrals would consider that meeting somewhere in the middle.

Still completely irrelevant to the point But yeah, OK.

My source said 65m was Chelsea's valuation. Some sources say 70m so 65-70m seems fair.

Obviously they didn't expect their initial valuation to be met and climbing down 5m or so is standard. Doesn't look desperate at all. United caved.

We got our no 1 midfield target for £55m + £5m if successful. That will do me 👍🏻

comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 13 minutes ago
My source said 65m was Chelsea's valuation. Some sources say 70m so 65-70m seems fair.

Obviously they didn't expect their initial valuation to be met and climbing down 5m or so is standard. Doesn't look desperate at all. United caved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your source, the Guardian, said, direct quote: "Chelsea’s starting point was £70m plus add-ons but they lowered their asking price to £65m last Friday."

I am not sure how they do maths in Liverpool; but in Manchester, assuming all else is equal, £70m minus £55m is £15m.

comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 52 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 13 minutes ago
My source said 65m was Chelsea's valuation. Some sources say 70m so 65-70m seems fair.

Obviously they didn't expect their initial valuation to be met and climbing down 5m or so is standard. Doesn't look desperate at all. United caved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your source, the Guardian, said, direct quote: "Chelsea’s starting point was £70m plus add-ons but they lowered their asking price to £65m last Friday."

I am not sure how they do maths in Liverpool; but in Manchester, assuming all else is equal, £70m minus £55m is £15m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's just one article and you know it. Other articles say 65m valuation. Try and be reasonable rather than stoic to suit your agenda. It was quoted at around 60m from even before the season ended and when Liverpool were linked.

Mount's price tag could also have put Liverpool off, as the Englishman was going to cost “at least £60 million,” according to the Guardian's latest report. That number was quoted as being closer to £85m by some outlets, a price that seems over the top considering Chelsea need to sell players

comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 52 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 13 minutes ago
My source said 65m was Chelsea's valuation. Some sources say 70m so 65-70m seems fair.

Obviously they didn't expect their initial valuation to be met and climbing down 5m or so is standard. Doesn't look desperate at all. United caved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your source, the Guardian, said, direct quote: "Chelsea’s starting point was £70m plus add-ons but they lowered their asking price to £65m last Friday."

I am not sure how they do maths in Liverpool; but in Manchester, assuming all else is equal, £70m minus £55m is £15m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's just one article and you know it. Other articles say 65m valuation. Try and be reasonable rather than stoic to suit your agenda. It was quoted at around 60m from even before the season ended and when Liverpool were linked.

Mount's price tag could also have put Liverpool off, as the Englishman was going to cost “at least £60 million,” according to the Guardian's latest report. That number was quoted as being closer to £85m by some outlets, a price that seems over the top considering Chelsea need to sell players
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My agenda

OK, have a nice weekend.