At It Again: Liverpool $77m transfer outdoes Manchester United while Man City ‘disguised’ payments emerge

Liverpool rivals round-up: Manchester United has agreed a deal with Chelsea over Mason Mount, while details have emerged from UEFA’s investigation into Manchester City.

Dominik Szoboszlai is the newest player in demand at Anfield, and it appears as though Liverpool’s summer renovation is ready to pick up speed.

Jürgen Klopp was seeking for signing number two this summer after previously securing the acquisition of Alexis Mac Allister, and he might be very close to finding him. Several sources, including the ECHO, have verified that Liverpool will fulfill the Hungarian player’s whole release clause.

Earlier this week, there were rumors that Liverpool was in Szoboszlai negotiations with RB Leipzig, but a trade still seemed a ways off. But things have moved swiftly, as The Athletic reported that the Reds were moving through with a deal as the midfielder’s $77 million (£60 million/€70 million) release date approached.

But not just the Reds are making progress; Manchester United appears to have finally overcome Chelsea’s reluctance about Mason Mount.

As additional information about UEFA’s investigation into Manchester City from three years ago becomes available, the club’s financial affairs are once again under the limelight.

Here, Liverpool.com scans the other major clubs in the Premier League and around Europe to see what news is circulating there.

Manchester United agrees Mason Mount deal

Mason amount: Man U, Chelsea agreed

Mason Mount has been signed by Manchester United and Chelsea in a transaction that is estimated to cost over $77 million (£60 million/€70 million) in total, including add-ons (according to BBC Sport).

Mount, who had previously drawn interest from Liverpool, will become United’s first new acquisition of the summer and will sign a five-year deal at Old Trafford.

The transfer—for the same amount as Szoboszlai, incidentally—comes after talks between United and Chelsea earlier this week as a result of Erik ten Hag’s team’s three unsuccessful bids.

According to Extrasoccernews.com, it’s understandable why Liverpool abandoned up on its chase of the Chelsea midfielder given the difficulties United had in securing a deal for Mount. This is especially true now that Szoboszlai appears to be on the verge of moving to Anfield with a lot less hassle.

You would have to argue Liverpool got the better deal given that Mount only had a year left on his Stamford Bridge contract and that the monies involved for both players were the same. Liverpool still outperforms the Reds in the transfer market, despite United beating them to the Champions League spot.

Man City ‘disguised’ two payments

Pep of Man City

During its examination into the team, UEFA came to the conclusion that Manchester City had concealed two $19 million (£15 million/€18 million) payments from a broker as sponsorship income (via Sky Sports).

The makers of a YouTube movie that debuted on Thursday had access to a report by the UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory body, and The Times has also viewed the study.

The committee’s findings were as follows, according to The Times: “Arrangements were made under which payments were made or caused to be made by ADUG (Abu Dhabi United Group), a private equity fund controlled by City owner Sheikh Mansour, but attributed to the sponsorship obligations of Etisalat in order to conceal the true purpose of equity funding, and those arrangements were carried into effect by the payments made by Jaber Mohamed totaling £30m.

The club’s management was well aware that Jaber Mohamed’s payments totaling £30 million were made as equity funding rather than as payments for the sponsor on account of legitimate sponsorship responsibilities.

According to Extrasoccernews.com, City is once again under the spotlight because of its financial operations. The team is accused of breaking 115 Premier League financial rules. Although CAS overturned the two-year ban City received from UEFA in 2020, it’s crucial to keep in mind that it determined some of the charges shouldn’t have been addressed because the five-year time limit had expired. It will be fascinating to observe how the Premier League manages the situation this time.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*