FrankLampard8

Fine but what if no one else is willing to buy KK for a meaningful fee? And we want a keeper and Onana is one of the guys the club has identified? Cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind...

In all fairness I think they are secretly quite keen to get shot, they MIGHT even do business with us on this one occasion. I know we need to raise some funds but surely there is a limit to the actual first team players we can lose. You can sell Pulisic, Ziyech, Aubameyang etc and not really notice it but surely you can't lose Havertz and Mount in the same window if indeed the plan is to play with a 10 (unless Gallagher backs up Nkunku?) as well as Kovacic, RLC and maybe Kante. It just feels like overkill.

Well if those 2 tweets aren't transfer rumours in a nutshell...

Arsenal reportedly had a £70m bid rejected so they obviously valued him higher than that back then. There's multiple articles like this online from January: https://www.skysports.com/football/transfer-paper-talk/12709/12794737/brighton-place-100m-valuation-on-midfielder-moises-caicedo-amid-chelsea-interest-paper-talk

Didn't hey quote Arsenal similar figures in January?

Maybe they think (as I do) that Caicedo is a better player? Liverpool also reportedly looking at Manu Kone and Kephren Thuram - perhaps the sort of singings we should be looking at if the other options are too steep?

Fair play to him. I think we all know that long term he isn't the answer but he has done incredibly well to put together a workable season when all was crumbling and his career looked all but dead.

I don't think buy out clauses are actually legal in this country - someone correct me if i'm wrong? Sure he could have done that but why would he? Honestly? He has more chance of getting the move he wants rather than just the highest bidder and more money for himself this way. Chelsea are seemingly still going to get a very handsome fee for him this summer - it's not like he's left on a free. If he signs a contract he could very easily end up like Kane or Zaha who it was widely agreed made mistakes by signing their deals. I don't believe anyone would pay the sort of fee that Chelsea would ask for Mount on an extended contract and he'd be stuck at a club he seemingly doesn't feel sure about for whatever reason.

If the agent is managing to get him double the salary at PSG compared to Chelsea who is to say that isn't in the players interest too?

Could you not argue that Benzema has already had years at the top and made his money. He is in more of a position to make a moral decision or choose to play somewhere out of love or passion. Whereas Mount has more cause to take the highest pay check and secure his own and his family's future early in his career having not had a mega contract yet and not been in the game as long?

I think the fees involved will be prohibitive but I truly believe Caicedo is a phenom and can have a Kante type impact here if signed. I think Rice's character and leadership is more important to our team right now but Caicedo is technically an unbelievable footballer.

Why are you so persistent with this? It's so tedious. Of course we don't have a clue but ultimately, if only talked abut things we knew were 100% factual then that wouldn't leave much and this forum would be a dull place and perhaps not even exist. I think most of us are sensible enough to know it's all rumour especially people that end their sentences with things like "according to some sources".

For me, Lavia is interesting. Other than that, the only one i'd even consider is Maddison if Mount is leaving and Harvey Barnes.

This. Every time I think about possible 11s for next season Mount is almost always the odd one out who I can't find a space for despite how much I like him as a player and as a bloke. Maybe this wide right Erisken-esque role is the solution - time will tell?

The only problem is, I think Badiashile could be very bloody good and they could well be competing for the same spot.

I think it is oversimplifying the issue to lay it solely at Lukaku's feet but he is a prime example of the issues that we had. We didn't capitalise on where we were as a club after the Champions League win for sure. Maybe Mount was resistant to signing a new deal even then but we should have been tying down our best academy graduates to long term deals and giving them prominent roles at the club even if they weren't guaranteed starters - James, Mount, Tammy as a back up striker getting significant minutes. Maybe more could have been done to keep Christensen or Tomori interested had we acted earlier. We had a quality homegrown spine there for the taking had we really grasped it. Now we are heading a similar way to PSG who produce an incredible amount of talent but have a squad full of mercenaries who the fans can't relate to. Hopefully we can keep Mount and integrate Colwill and build from there. I really do think it's important.

Only Modric and Eriksen largely played very different roles during Poch's time at Spurs. Modric played a deep midfield role not unlike Enzo has played here. Eriksen played as a wide 10 with licence to come inside and play between the lines - if Mount plays that role it would be very similar to how he was used under Tuchel.

Yeah! Stop using the majority of his body of work and judge his career based on about 9 months at a club that has been an absolute car crash from top to bottom like a reasonable person!

I completely agree with all of this and it would certainly be a sign of the changing times if he goes IMO. I would be very sad to see him leave.

I don't think what Celery said has anything to do with Mount being an academy lad. Yes, it's down to the new manager who he picks but Mount might have to be sold before they get to pick their first team if he won't sign a contract so that's pretty irrelevant. The new manager can want Mount all they want but we can't afford to lose him for free next year if he doesn't want to stay. I'd also argue a 4-4-2 doesn't blow anything out of the water because I doubt Mount would be first choice in a system like that. That leaves the very reasonable question of whether Mount's output is enough to be THE attacking player in a midfield three or as a 10 with two more solid players behind him - not saying it is or isn't but that really is the question at hand.

Why would he end up like Adam Lallana? Based on what? I actually think football wise Liverpool is the best move for him as long as Klopp is going to be around for a while longer. I personally think he will be absolutely brilliant in their system and will suddenly get plaudits from all angles once he's playing in red as a bonus. Whether we like them or not being a key player for Liverpool under one of the best coaches in the world has to be appealing. Similarly at Arsenal, it's not as natural a fit but they are suddenly going to have Champion's League to contend with and will hope to go deep in all competitions as they try and cement themselves as one of the top clubs again. There will be minutes to share between Mount and Odegaard and maybe even with the right holding midfielder they can play together in some games - Mount isn't exactly a passenger without the ball. Meanwhile, Mount has been in and out of the side with no defined position here. We don't know how good or competitive we will be for a long time. You are being very partisan if you can't see why he would consider it. I'm not saying there aren't big reasons to stay also but it isn't madness if he decides he wants a new challenge.

They would be very good. Weird move from Mount though because i'm not sure he plays over Odegaard in the big games at the moment.

Again I agree, I wouldn't expect all the under 22 year olds to perform to that level... what i'm questioning is why on earth we've p*ssed so much money on teenagers and 20 year olds when the first team was in need of serious surgery and a refresh. Spent more wisely we could have just identified 4 or 5 targets and made the first team very good. Where would we be now if we had gone ok we need 2 centre halves, a holding midfielder, a centre forward and one other (winger, goalkeeper take your pick) - we have £400m to spend and let's get the best player we can in that position whether they are supposed to be available or not? money talks.

I'm well aware it doesn't always work like that but if you are competent and spend the money well it absolutely should work like that. We have spent enough money to be a VERY good football team - to say anything less is letting Clearlake off the hook. I appreciate we lost some very good players (with centre half in particular hit badly) but we had a world class coach when they took over, a lot of good players left and spent enough money to cherry pick almost any 4 or 5 (maybe 6) world class players we wanted to plug right in. The amount of money we've spent on projects for the future is quite frankly ridiculous and I can't imagine it will bear much fruit if i'm honest - I hope to be proved wrong.

None of these stats actually show much of anything regarding the performance of centre halves. What about tackles, interceptions, clearance, aerial duels won etc? Or perhaps just as important for a team like Chelsea, passing stats? Quite clearly the board didn't think KK was a waste of money when they bought him and I think general consensus was he was a great player who would slot straight in and perform - just the fee was a little big and the contract a little long for someone his age. It hasn't worked out so far (and might never) but at least there was evidence to suggest KK had the potential to fill Rudi's boots. KK looked brilliant in another team. Who is to say the 2 cloggers you seem so set on would have performed well in this circus either?