comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
As to Mount, United have gone in early for him this summer because they know that Chelsea would want a deal done by the end of this month so that they can register the income against their 2022/23 accounts. I expect it was Chelsea who reinitiated discussions this week in an effort to get the deal done and registered quickly.
After 30 June, Chelsea would have less of an incentive to rush any deal through, and more of an incentive to hold out for whatever fee they thought they might be able to milk for the player. i.e. United could have expected to pay a higher fee to get the deal done in July or August than they have just agreed to pay.
=====
United might also want the transfer registered against their 22/23 accounts. So could be United that initiated renegotiation and media reports seem to support that conclusion.
Also, United are basically paying what Chelsea wanted from the start. I don't think the fee would have been much different before or after the end of the month. When Liverpool were linked with Mount he was apparently going for 50-60m. Been the same story all summer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First point is fair. It could also have been a factor for United.
On the second point, Chelsea might have been consistent with the fee they’ve wanted to date (although we can’t really know that). That doesn’t mean their ideas on price and urgency wouldn’t have changed after 30 June.
It would make sense for them to have had ‘to 30 June’ and ‘from 1 July’ fees, or at least a (much) greater willingness to negotiate before 1 July due to the inherent additional value (possibly even outright need) of registering his fee against this season’s books.
The deadline was an obvious negotiating tactic for United, which Chelsea will also have known, of course. I’ve been saying for weeks (as have others) that we’d know how desperately Chelsea needed to sell Mount by 30 June. I think we have our answer.
.............................Onana
AWB............Varane.. .........Martinez....Shaw
.........Bruno.........Casemiro......Mount
Antony..............Watkins.. ....Rashford
................ ...............DDG
AWB............Varane.. .........Martinez....Shaw
.........Bruno.........Casemiro......Mount
Antony..............Kane .. ....Rashford
In answer to your OP, which of the above line ups would achieve more?
................ ...............DDG
AWB............Varane.. .........Martinez....Shaw
.........Bruno.........Casemiro......Mount
Antony..............Kane .. ....Rashford ..... ... Sessions.
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 5 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
As to Mount, United have gone in early for him this summer because they know that Chelsea would want a deal done by the end of this month so that they can register the income against their 2022/23 accounts. I expect it was Chelsea who reinitiated discussions this week in an effort to get the deal done and registered quickly.
After 30 June, Chelsea would have less of an incentive to rush any deal through, and more of an incentive to hold out for whatever fee they thought they might be able to milk for the player. i.e. United could have expected to pay a higher fee to get the deal done in July or August than they have just agreed to pay.
=====
United might also want the transfer registered against their 22/23 accounts. So could be United that initiated renegotiation and media reports seem to support that conclusion.
Also, United are basically paying what Chelsea wanted from the start. I don't think the fee would have been much different before or after the end of the month. When Liverpool were linked with Mount he was apparently going for 50-60m. Been the same story all summer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First point is fair. It could also have been a factor for United.
On the second point, Chelsea might have been consistent with the fee they’ve wanted to date (although we can’t really know that). That doesn’t mean their ideas on price and urgency wouldn’t have changed after 30 June.
It would make sense for them to have had ‘to 30 June’ and ‘from 1 July’ fees, or at least a (much) greater willingness to negotiate before 1 July due to the inherent additional value (possibly even outright need) of registering his fee against this season’s books.
The deadline was an obvious negotiating tactic for United, which Chelsea will also have known, of course. I’ve been saying for weeks (as have others) that we’d know how desperately Chelsea needed to sell Mount by 30 June. I think we have our answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your theory would work if Chelsea had lowered their demands just before that date but that's not what it looks like. It looks like United showed up just before the deadline and basically paid just about what Chelsea wanted from the start. I don't think Chelsea's valuation of Mount would have gone up because 60m is already ridiculous enough. Would they have then demanded 70-80m for him? They might have preferred to register the transfer against their 22/23 accounts but their desperation to sell would not have evaporated on 30th June. They would still be desperate to offload Mount and other players.
You might have this the wrong way around. Obviously you are correct in saying we can never really be sure but many sources reported bids made by United of around 40-50m which were rejected by Chelsea and numerous reports that United were ready to walk away as they felt their bid matched the player's value.
Then on that significant date United basically just pay what Chelsea want before the clock strikes midnight.
1. Numerous sources (Telegraph, Guardian, others) have said that Chelsea valued Mount at £70m (others have quoted considerably upwards of that figure) and that Chelsea started the negotiation there.
2. United were in for him weeks ago. The first bid went in mid-May. I wouldn’t call that last minute.
3. Even if Chelsea’s price hadn’t changed through the negotiation (contrary to literally every report I’ve read), that wouldn’t mean that things wouldn’t change for them after 30 June. Again, the player’s value to the club would effectively change at the stroke of midnight on 30 June.
4. It has been very widely reported, for months, that Chelsea needed to sell early in this window to get sales registered against 2022/23 accounts. The fact that they’ve already offloaded close to ten players for approaching £200m demonstrates that that assessment was always true. Of that £200m, almost two thirds has been generated by the sales of Havertz and Mount, and amortisation considered, Mount is (comfortably) the sale which will have contributed most in terms of balancing the books for FFP purposes.
https://theathletic.com/4651467/2023/06/29/transfer-deadline-june30-premier-league-chelsea/?amp=1
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chelsea-face-summer-firesale-of-players-to-meet-ffp-rules-dl07fdkc3
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.
Sign in if you want to comment
Top priority?
Page 2 of 2
posted on 30/6/23
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
As to Mount, United have gone in early for him this summer because they know that Chelsea would want a deal done by the end of this month so that they can register the income against their 2022/23 accounts. I expect it was Chelsea who reinitiated discussions this week in an effort to get the deal done and registered quickly.
After 30 June, Chelsea would have less of an incentive to rush any deal through, and more of an incentive to hold out for whatever fee they thought they might be able to milk for the player. i.e. United could have expected to pay a higher fee to get the deal done in July or August than they have just agreed to pay.
=====
United might also want the transfer registered against their 22/23 accounts. So could be United that initiated renegotiation and media reports seem to support that conclusion.
Also, United are basically paying what Chelsea wanted from the start. I don't think the fee would have been much different before or after the end of the month. When Liverpool were linked with Mount he was apparently going for 50-60m. Been the same story all summer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First point is fair. It could also have been a factor for United.
On the second point, Chelsea might have been consistent with the fee they’ve wanted to date (although we can’t really know that). That doesn’t mean their ideas on price and urgency wouldn’t have changed after 30 June.
It would make sense for them to have had ‘to 30 June’ and ‘from 1 July’ fees, or at least a (much) greater willingness to negotiate before 1 July due to the inherent additional value (possibly even outright need) of registering his fee against this season’s books.
The deadline was an obvious negotiating tactic for United, which Chelsea will also have known, of course. I’ve been saying for weeks (as have others) that we’d know how desperately Chelsea needed to sell Mount by 30 June. I think we have our answer.
posted on 30/6/23
.............................Onana
AWB............Varane.. .........Martinez....Shaw
.........Bruno.........Casemiro......Mount
Antony..............Watkins.. ....Rashford
posted on 30/6/23
................ ...............DDG
AWB............Varane.. .........Martinez....Shaw
.........Bruno.........Casemiro......Mount
Antony..............Kane .. ....Rashford
posted on 30/6/23
In answer to your OP, which of the above line ups would achieve more?
posted on 30/6/23
................ ...............DDG
AWB............Varane.. .........Martinez....Shaw
.........Bruno.........Casemiro......Mount
Antony..............Kane .. ....Rashford ..... ... Sessions.
posted on 30/6/23
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unlimited Pote-ntial of the Fernançalvemiro triumvirate (U17054)
posted 5 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by K7-0ptimus Primal (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 25 minutes ago
As to Mount, United have gone in early for him this summer because they know that Chelsea would want a deal done by the end of this month so that they can register the income against their 2022/23 accounts. I expect it was Chelsea who reinitiated discussions this week in an effort to get the deal done and registered quickly.
After 30 June, Chelsea would have less of an incentive to rush any deal through, and more of an incentive to hold out for whatever fee they thought they might be able to milk for the player. i.e. United could have expected to pay a higher fee to get the deal done in July or August than they have just agreed to pay.
=====
United might also want the transfer registered against their 22/23 accounts. So could be United that initiated renegotiation and media reports seem to support that conclusion.
Also, United are basically paying what Chelsea wanted from the start. I don't think the fee would have been much different before or after the end of the month. When Liverpool were linked with Mount he was apparently going for 50-60m. Been the same story all summer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First point is fair. It could also have been a factor for United.
On the second point, Chelsea might have been consistent with the fee they’ve wanted to date (although we can’t really know that). That doesn’t mean their ideas on price and urgency wouldn’t have changed after 30 June.
It would make sense for them to have had ‘to 30 June’ and ‘from 1 July’ fees, or at least a (much) greater willingness to negotiate before 1 July due to the inherent additional value (possibly even outright need) of registering his fee against this season’s books.
The deadline was an obvious negotiating tactic for United, which Chelsea will also have known, of course. I’ve been saying for weeks (as have others) that we’d know how desperately Chelsea needed to sell Mount by 30 June. I think we have our answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your theory would work if Chelsea had lowered their demands just before that date but that's not what it looks like. It looks like United showed up just before the deadline and basically paid just about what Chelsea wanted from the start. I don't think Chelsea's valuation of Mount would have gone up because 60m is already ridiculous enough. Would they have then demanded 70-80m for him? They might have preferred to register the transfer against their 22/23 accounts but their desperation to sell would not have evaporated on 30th June. They would still be desperate to offload Mount and other players.
You might have this the wrong way around. Obviously you are correct in saying we can never really be sure but many sources reported bids made by United of around 40-50m which were rejected by Chelsea and numerous reports that United were ready to walk away as they felt their bid matched the player's value.
Then on that significant date United basically just pay what Chelsea want before the clock strikes midnight.
posted on 30/6/23
1. Numerous sources (Telegraph, Guardian, others) have said that Chelsea valued Mount at £70m (others have quoted considerably upwards of that figure) and that Chelsea started the negotiation there.
2. United were in for him weeks ago. The first bid went in mid-May. I wouldn’t call that last minute.
3. Even if Chelsea’s price hadn’t changed through the negotiation (contrary to literally every report I’ve read), that wouldn’t mean that things wouldn’t change for them after 30 June. Again, the player’s value to the club would effectively change at the stroke of midnight on 30 June.
4. It has been very widely reported, for months, that Chelsea needed to sell early in this window to get sales registered against 2022/23 accounts. The fact that they’ve already offloaded close to ten players for approaching £200m demonstrates that that assessment was always true. Of that £200m, almost two thirds has been generated by the sales of Havertz and Mount, and amortisation considered, Mount is (comfortably) the sale which will have contributed most in terms of balancing the books for FFP purposes.
posted on 30/6/23
https://theathletic.com/4651467/2023/06/29/transfer-deadline-june30-premier-league-chelsea/?amp=1
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chelsea-face-summer-firesale-of-players-to-meet-ffp-rules-dl07fdkc3
posted on 30/6/23
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.
posted on 30/6/23
United massively upped their bid last minute, going from a 40m bid to paying 55m+5m, while Chelsea climbed down by about 5m.
posted on 30/6/23
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.
posted on 30/6/23
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.
posted on 30/6/23
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.
posted on 30/6/23
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.
posted on 30/6/23
We got our no 1 midfield target for £55m + £5m if successful. That will do me 👍🏻
posted on 30/6/23
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.
posted on 30/6/23
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
posted on 30/6/23
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.
Page 2 of 2