You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
mscenterh750
Well-Known Member
Re: Cesc Fabregas
K sera sera whatever will be will be, this thread is boring me, wake me up when he's at city, k sera sera.
K sera sera whatever will be will be, this thread is boring me, wake me up when he's at city, k sera sera.
Re: Cesc Fabregas
At least this lot have ruled themselves out......ha
Dagenham & Redbridge ✔ @Dag_RedFC
Follow
Breaking: With current interest from London clubs, the Daggers have ruled themselves out of the running to sign Barcelona's, #CescFabregas
11:43 AM - 3 Jun 2014
At least this lot have ruled themselves out......ha
Dagenham & Redbridge ✔ @Dag_RedFC
Follow
Breaking: With current interest from London clubs, the Daggers have ruled themselves out of the running to sign Barcelona's, #CescFabregas
11:43 AM - 3 Jun 2014
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Cesc Fabregas
Shows what I know! :)
Interesting to see the various opinions on Kolarov. For me he has to go. Too old, wages too high, will end up leaving on a free next summer and certainly not worth a new 4/5 year contract at 100k + a week.
In the CL he's out of his depth as soon as the opposition is of any quality.
I also think people need to get their heads around the fact that this squad isn't Txiki & Pellegrini's. It's Mancini's. As DoF I've little doubt Txiki will want to be judged on a squad he's built and as such I can see players like Kolarov, Milner, and even one of Nasri or Dzeko leaving. These guys contractual situations make it much easier to make the call IMO.
OB1 said:BillyShears said:Chelsea's name is being used by Darren Dein to put pressure on both City and Arsenal. Absolutely no way will Mourinho and Chelsea sign Fabregas. This will come down to Arsenal ... if they don't move he's ours. IF they do he'll go there. My money is comfortably still on him ending up at City. Just don't see Txiki letting this one pass ...
Your money! Pah! You're just the fool that kept saying we'd win two trophies last season.
Shows what I know! :)
Interesting to see the various opinions on Kolarov. For me he has to go. Too old, wages too high, will end up leaving on a free next summer and certainly not worth a new 4/5 year contract at 100k + a week.
In the CL he's out of his depth as soon as the opposition is of any quality.
I also think people need to get their heads around the fact that this squad isn't Txiki & Pellegrini's. It's Mancini's. As DoF I've little doubt Txiki will want to be judged on a squad he's built and as such I can see players like Kolarov, Milner, and even one of Nasri or Dzeko leaving. These guys contractual situations make it much easier to make the call IMO.
whyalwaysyou
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2012
- Messages
- 222
Re: Cesc Fabregas
What are you saying? Despite them quoting mundo deportivo, the fact its a front page headline means they have their own info? :S im lost
laeth said:NipHolmes said:BlueDejong said:http://www.abc.es/deportes/futbol/20140603/abci-cesc-fabregas-chelsea-mourinho-201406031227.html
Stop it, It's over. ABC now.
Quoting Mundo Deportivo.
ABC are basically the BBC of Spain :). That isn't a rumour based headline like the BBC do on their website (even if they are quoting the original source as Mundo Deportivo), it's a headline on the front-page.
What are you saying? Despite them quoting mundo deportivo, the fact its a front page headline means they have their own info? :S im lost
OB1
Well-Known Member
Re: Cesc Fabregas
Definitely not the end of the world if Kolarov goes: he is not consistent enough defensively.
It's an old story but if we could meld Kolarov and Clichy into one player...
Not sure what will happen with Fabregas but I would not rule of the Chelsea link (regardless of whether Talkhite are right or wrong).
BillyShears said:OB1 said:BillyShears said:Chelsea's name is being used by Darren Dein to put pressure on both City and Arsenal. Absolutely no way will Mourinho and Chelsea sign Fabregas. This will come down to Arsenal ... if they don't move he's ours. IF they do he'll go there. My money is comfortably still on him ending up at City. Just don't see Txiki letting this one pass ...
Your money! Pah! You're just the fool that kept saying we'd win two trophies last season.
Shows what I know! :)
Interesting to see the various opinions on Kolarov. For me he has to go. Too old, wages too high, will end up leaving on a free next summer and certainly not worth a new 4/5 year contract at 100k + a week.
In the CL he's out of his depth as soon as the opposition is of any quality.
I also think people need to get their heads around the fact that this squad isn't Txiki & Pellegrini's. It's Mancini's. As DoF I've little doubt Txiki will want to be judged on a squad he's built and as such I can see players like Kolarov, Milner, and even one of Nasri or Dzeko leaving. These guys contractual situations make it much easier to make the call IMO.
Definitely not the end of the world if Kolarov goes: he is not consistent enough defensively.
It's an old story but if we could meld Kolarov and Clichy into one player...
Not sure what will happen with Fabregas but I would not rule of the Chelsea link (regardless of whether Talkhite are right or wrong).
Latics Fan SJK
Well-Known Member
Re: Cesc Fabregas
Lost count how many times I've had to explain we did not accept a "settlement" fee proposed by City a few years ago. A few years ago, he looked like a £20m player, and there was no way Corney was going to accept 750k. He's come out and said as much on a few occasions.
The only "disappointing" thing from our point of view is that we're probs only going to get £1.5m max it seems now, but then again when Richards was putting in the performances that warranted a £20m valuation, you were never going to sell him anyway.
OB1 said:Davs 19 said:fbloke said:We paid Oldham off for about £750k a couple of seasons ago.
I thought we made an offer but they turned it down ? Could well be wrong though.....
Ditto.
Lost count how many times I've had to explain we did not accept a "settlement" fee proposed by City a few years ago. A few years ago, he looked like a £20m player, and there was no way Corney was going to accept 750k. He's come out and said as much on a few occasions.
The only "disappointing" thing from our point of view is that we're probs only going to get £1.5m max it seems now, but then again when Richards was putting in the performances that warranted a £20m valuation, you were never going to sell him anyway.
ianw16
Well-Known Member
Re: Cesc Fabregas
Hmmm, I'd be interested to see how Fabregas at Chelsea works out. An article I read this morning suggested the reason he wasn't a roaring success at Barca was due to them being far more tactically disciplined than Arsenal, and he therefore could't shine the way he did at Le Arse. Struggling to think of a more regimented team than Chelsea. Didn't go well for Mata.
Hmmm, I'd be interested to see how Fabregas at Chelsea works out. An article I read this morning suggested the reason he wasn't a roaring success at Barca was due to them being far more tactically disciplined than Arsenal, and he therefore could't shine the way he did at Le Arse. Struggling to think of a more regimented team than Chelsea. Didn't go well for Mata.
OB1
Well-Known Member
Re: Cesc Fabregas
I am bloody certain that the limit is not based on amortisation: that is accounted for the restriction on the bottom line result.
I would also not be surprised if within the detail of the agreement between City and UEFA there is something to prevent City getting around the restrictions by doing "loan" deals.
ColinLee said:It's not, it's £49 million Net spend. Why people are blathering on about amortisation I have no idea.adrianr said:Shirely it can't be an amortised value? 49 million wouldn't barely be a cap at all. It would just about stop us signing Messi and that's it!
That said the UEFA statement says :-
which suggests it's for 2 seasons regardless whereas City claim all sanctions will be gone at the end of next season.Manchester City agrees to significantly limit spending in the transfer market for
seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Manchester City further accepts a calculated
limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List
for the purposes of participation in UEFA competitions. This calculation is based
on the clubs net transfer position in each respective registration period covered by
this agreement.
I don't even know what "City further accepts a calculated limitation on the number of new registrations it may include within their “A” List" actually means.
I am bloody certain that the limit is not based on amortisation: that is accounted for the restriction on the bottom line result.
I would also not be surprised if within the detail of the agreement between City and UEFA there is something to prevent City getting around the restrictions by doing "loan" deals.