Fabregas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fergie's Man said:
I hear you. But it is his boyhood club, why wouldn't he. He is a Barca supporter.
Click to expand...


Exactly. It's his boyhood club. The manager sat him down and explained his vision. He is part of that vision. Why would he leave it ?

The Don said:
Gerrard? Rooney?
Click to expand...


Poor examples. At any rate neither were playing for their boyhood club when they kissed the badge.
 
Scoring twice for his boyhood club with a fresh start under a new manager....forget it....his mind is made up....we can start expecting the marchisio to utd rumours first thing monday morning in all the tabloids unless we are offering fabregas double the salary that barca are will to offer him or something crazy like that
 
Isotope said:
I don't think Barca need to sell in order to buy another player. They bought Neymar for 50m, then sold Thiago for 18m; so about 30m net spend. They can easily spend another 40m if they want (without selling Fab), and the net spend would only be 70m. Barca's income is 2nd or 3rd largest, without the debt burden like United (who could've spent 50m net in a season).
Click to expand...
I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that Barca's finances aren't as solid and rosy as they might seem. Their wage bill is massive and they might want to start preparing to lose some of their TV revenue, which would be a bit hit on their income. They're in a fairly healthy financial situation, but they can't just throw money around like the oil clubs. If they do intend on bringing in another player I don't think it's unlikely they'll balance the books by selling.

http://swissramble.blogspot.dk/2012/04/truth-about-debt-at-barcelona-and-real.html is a good (and long) read, if you're up for it. Even just skimming the graphs and reading some of the text below will give you a decent idea on their situation.
 
Reapersoul20 said:
Exactly. It's his boyhood club. The manager sat him down and explained his vision. He is part of that vision. Why would he leave it ?




Poor examples. At any rate neither were playing for their boyhood club when they kissed the badge.
Click to expand...

Rooney was. He did it at Everton and left a week or two later. Gerrard is Liverpool through and through. He may, at one time, have been an Everton supporter but at the time he kissed the Liver Bird, he was well and truly a red.
 
Ringo 07 said:
Scoring twice for his boyhood club with a fresh start under a new manager....forget it....his mind is made up....we can start expecting the marchisio to utd rumours first thing monday morning in all the tabloids unless we are offering fabregas double the salary that barca are will to offer him or something crazy like that
Click to expand...

He had to come off the bench to do it. Even in a friendly, it says a lot.
 
Ringo 07 said:
Scoring twice for his boyhood club with a fresh start under a new manager....forget it....his mind is made up....we can start expecting the marchisio to utd rumours first thing monday morning in all the tabloids unless we are offering fabregas double the salary that barca are will to offer him or something crazy like that
Click to expand...

We are. 100,00 Euros with barca or £200,000 per week with us. He has just sploshed £5m on a house in London. Guaranteed starter with us.

Oh yeah and Barca will get a better deal with us than Arsenal and the infamous clause. Perhaps he has been told that his chances of a transfer to United are much greater than to London.
 
Eboue said:
How is it not plausible? United's midfield could use upgrading. Therefore, they try to upgrade with Thiago and/or Fabregas. Ronaldo is one of the best players in the world. Therefore, they try to acquire him. Both of those things are plausible.

Your grasp of the English language is worrying.
Click to expand...

Both separately are plausible, but both happening is not plausible.

You're confusing what's "hypothetically possible" with what's "plausible". It's hypothetically possible that Wilfied Zaha, who has shown us incredible stuff in pre-season, could go on to become the greatest of United legends. Possible, but not plausible because we have so little factual basis to go on to warrant that conclusion that it's simply beyond the realm of reasonable belief that reach that conclusion. But possible? Yes, Zaha could go on to smash Charlton's goal scoring record and Giggsy's matches played record and be hailed the greatest United footballer of all time.

The word "plausible", at least in this context, is close to being synonymous with 'believable". To hold that an assertion is plausible, it has to be more than hypothetically or theoretically possible. It's possible that the dude who uses the name "Ruud10" on RedCafe is Stephen A. Smith (an American sports commentator), but it's highly unlikely that that is the case. It's just not plausible, although it could just be true.

Reasonable people may hold differing opinions on just about anything. Was it once viewed as plausible by intelligent people that Aryans were the "master race"? Yes, it was. Was it once widely viewed by learned men and women that phrenology was plausible? Yes, it was. Both theories were debunked as pseudoscience, while other perfectly respectable theories, such as the sun spinning around the earth, have been debunked by improved fact-finding technologies such as telescopes.

You, a reasonable poster (although I question your choice of username), believe it's entirely possible, and therefore plausible, that we could land BOTH Fabregas AND Ronaldo -- or at least that someone who holds the keys to Old Trafford thinks we could land both. I agree that it is possible -- meaning nothing more than a logical possibility -- but I also believe it's extremely unlikely to the point of self-evident absurdity. As we sit here right now, it seems highly unlikely we'd land EITHER, let alone BOTH. But there are those, and perhaps you are one, who think it quite plausible that we'd be genuinely in for both. (No smokescreen.) Few things that could transpire over the next 30 days that would please me more than the historic spectacle of both Ronaldo and Fabregas holding up red shirts with black, button-down collars at Old Trafford, proving that you were right -- that it was indeed "plausible" because it actually came to pass -- and proving me wrong. I don't consider myself one of the dour posters here, but even the most optimistic of caftards would reject as wildly unlikely the prospect of seeing both Ronaldo and Fabregas brought in. But you never know. Until it doesn't happen, as you see it, it could happen, and therefore it's "plausible".

So, if you wish to use the word "plausible" to be synonymous with "impossible", please go ahead. But the usage of that word in that way would be alien to the ear of most English speakers. Or maybe English-speaking Americans. Do Brits who believe something that is highly unlikely but it is theoretically possible, is still "plausible"? Maybe we have a mere American-English v British-English divergence in play.



(My apologies to caftards...when a point of personal privilege is raised it's not in my nature to respond meekly.)
 
Ruud10 said:
Both separately are plausible, but both happening is not plausible.

You're confusing what's "hypothetically possible" with what's "plausible". It's hypothetically possible that Wilfied Zaha, who has shown us incredible stuff in pre-season, could go on to become the greatest of United legends. Possible, but not plausible because we have so little factual basis to go on to warrant that conclusion that it's simply beyond the realm of reasonable belief that reach that conclusion. But possible? Yes, Zaha could go on to smash Charlton's goal scoring record and Giggsy's matches played record and be hailed the greatest United footballer of all time.

The word "plausible", at least in this context, is close to being synonymous with 'believable". To hold that an assertion is plausible, it has to be more than hypothetically or theoretically possible. It's possible that the dude who uses the name "Ruud10" on RedCafe is Stephen A. Smith (an American sports commentator), but it's highly unlikely that that is the case. It's just not plausible, although it could just be true.

Reasonable people may hold differing opinions on just about anything. Was it once viewed as plausible by intelligent people that Aryans were the "master race"? Yes, it was. Was it once widely viewed by learned men and women that phrenology was plausible? Yes, it was. Both theories were debunked as pseudoscience, while other perfectly respectable theories, such as the sun spinning around the earth, have been debunked by improved fact-finding technologies such as telescopes.

You, a reasonable poster (although I question your choice of username), believe it's entirely possible, and therefore plausible, that we could land BOTH Fabregas AND Ronaldo -- or at least that someone who holds the keys to Old Trafford thinks we could land both. I agree that it is possible -- meaning nothing more than a logical possibility -- but I also believe it's extremely unlikely to the point of self-evident absurdity. As we sit here right now, it seems highly unlikely we'd land EITHER, let alone BOTH. But there are those, and perhaps you are one, who think it quite plausible that we'd be genuinely in for both. (No smokescreen.) Few things that could transpire over the next 30 days that would please me more than the historic spectacle of both Ronaldo and Fabregas holding up red shirts with black, button-down collars at Old Trafford, proving that you were right -- that it was indeed "plausible" because it actually came to pass -- and proving me wrong. I don't consider myself one of the dour posters here, but even the most optimistic of caftards would reject as wildly unlikely the prospect of seeing both Ronaldo and Fabregas brought in. But you never know. Until it doesn't happen, as you see it, it could happen, and therefore it's "plausible".

So, if you wish to use the word "plausible" to be synonymous with "impossible", please go ahead. But the usage of that word in that way would be alien to the ear of most English speakers. Or maybe English-speaking Americans. Do Brits who believe something that is highly unlikely but it is theoretically possible, is still "plausible"? Maybe we have a mere American-English v British-English divergence in play.



(My apologies to caftards...when a point of personal privilege is raised it's not in my nature to respond meekly.)
Click to expand...
I genuinely fukking despise you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moses and Damien
Ruud10 said:
Both separately are plausible, but both happening is not plausible.

You're confusing what's "hypothetically possible" with what's "plausible". It's hypothetically possible that Wilfied Zaha, who has shown us incredible stuff in pre-season, could go on to become the greatest of United legends. Possible, but not plausible because we have so little factual basis to go on to warrant that conclusion that it's simply beyond the realm of reasonable belief that reach that conclusion. But possible? Yes, Zaha could go on to smash Charlton's goal scoring record and Giggsy's matches played record and be hailed the greatest United footballer of all time.

The word "plausible", at least in this context, is close to being synonymous with 'believable". To hold that an assertion is plausible, it has to be more than hypothetically or theoretically possible. It's possible that the dude who uses the name "Ruud10" on RedCafe is Stephen A. Smith (an American sports commentator), but it's highly unlikely that that is the case. It's just not plausible, although it could just be true.

Reasonable people may hold differing opinions on just about anything. Was it once viewed as plausible by intelligent people that Aryans were the "master race"? Yes, it was. Was it once widely viewed by learned men and women that phrenology was plausible? Yes, it was. Both theories were debunked as pseudoscience, while other perfectly respectable theories, such as the sun spinning around the earth, have been debunked by improved fact-finding technologies such as telescopes.

You, a reasonable poster (although I question your choice of username), believe it's entirely possible, and therefore plausible, that we could land BOTH Fabregas AND Ronaldo -- or at least that someone who holds the keys to Old Trafford thinks we could land both. I agree that it is possible -- meaning nothing more than a logical possibility -- but I also believe it's extremely unlikely to the point of self-evident absurdity. As we sit here right now, it seems highly unlikely we'd land EITHER, let alone BOTH. But there are those, and perhaps you are one, who think it quite plausible that we'd be genuinely in for both. (No smokescreen.) Few things that could transpire over the next 30 days that would please me more than the historic spectacle of both Ronaldo and Fabregas holding up red shirts with black, button-down collars at Old Trafford, proving that you were right -- that it was indeed "plausible" because it actually came to pass -- and proving me wrong. I don't consider myself one of the dour posters here, but even the most optimistic of caftards would reject as wildly unlikely the prospect of seeing both Ronaldo and Fabregas brought in. But you never know. Until it doesn't happen, as you see it, it could happen, and therefore it's "plausible".

So, if you wish to use the word "plausible" to be synonymous with "impossible", please go ahead. But the usage of that word in that way would be alien to the ear of most English speakers. Or maybe English-speaking Americans. Do Brits who believe something that is highly unlikely but it is theoretically possible, is still "plausible"? Maybe we have a mere American-English v British-English divergence in play.



(My apologies to caftards...when a point of personal privilege is raised it's not in my nature to respond meekly.)
Click to expand...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible
hth
 
Ruud10 said:
Both separately are plausible, but both happening is not plausible.

You're confusing what's "hypothetically possible" with what's "plausible". It's hypothetically possible that Wilfied Zaha, who has shown us incredible stuff in pre-season, could go on to become the greatest of United legends. Possible, but not plausible because we have so little factual basis to go on to warrant that conclusion that it's simply beyond the realm of reasonable belief that reach that conclusion. But possible? Yes, Zaha could go on to smash Charlton's goal scoring record and Giggsy's matches played record and be hailed the greatest United footballer of all time.

The word "plausible", at least in this context, is close to being synonymous with 'believable". To hold that an assertion is plausible, it has to be more than hypothetically or theoretically possible. It's possible that the dude who uses the name "Ruud10" on RedCafe is Stephen A. Smith (an American sports commentator), but it's highly unlikely that that is the case. It's just not plausible, although it could just be true.

Reasonable people may hold differing opinions on just about anything. Was it once viewed as plausible by intelligent people that Aryans were the "master race"? Yes, it was. Was it once widely viewed by learned men and women that phrenology was plausible? Yes, it was. Both theories were debunked as pseudoscience, while other perfectly respectable theories, such as the sun spinning around the earth, have been debunked by improved fact-finding technologies such as telescopes.

You, a reasonable poster (although I question your choice of username), believe it's entirely possible, and therefore plausible, that we could land BOTH Fabregas AND Ronaldo -- or at least that someone who holds the keys to Old Trafford thinks we could land both. I agree that it is possible -- meaning nothing more than a logical possibility -- but I also believe it's extremely unlikely to the point of self-evident absurdity. As we sit here right now, it seems highly unlikely we'd land EITHER, let alone BOTH. But there are those, and perhaps you are one, who think it quite plausible that we'd be genuinely in for both. (No smokescreen.) Few things that could transpire over the next 30 days that would please me more than the historic spectacle of both Ronaldo and Fabregas holding up red shirts with black, button-down collars at Old Trafford, proving that you were right -- that it was indeed "plausible" because it actually came to pass -- and proving me wrong. I don't consider myself one of the dour posters here, but even the most optimistic of caftards would reject as wildly unlikely the prospect of seeing both Ronaldo and Fabregas brought in. But you never know. Until it doesn't happen, as you see it, it could happen, and therefore it's "plausible".

So, if you wish to use the word "plausible" to be synonymous with "impossible", please go ahead. But the usage of that word in that way would be alien to the ear of most English speakers. Or maybe English-speaking Americans. Do Brits who believe something that is highly unlikely but it is theoretically possible, is still "plausible"? Maybe we have a mere American-English v British-English divergence in play.



(My apologies to caftards...when a point of personal privilege is raised it's not in my nature to respond meekly.)
Click to expand...


jaguars-fan-gif.gif
 
The Neviller said:
I genuinely fukking despise you.
Click to expand...

There's no need for that, young Luke. A simple disagreement resulted in question over a narrow point, the meaning of a particular word, resulting in an explanation as to why that word was specifically chosen. Not once was that other poster, a great and noble poster, abused.

I even extended an olive branch, expressing hope that he was right and that I was wrong, that the Good Lord would indeed bestow His beneficence on us deliver BOTH Ronaldo and Fabregas. If the Good Lord allows this to happen, then for all I care Fergie could join Jose and manage Chelsea -- we'd destroy them.

But then again we may instead have to settle for Fellaini. :eek:
 
Ruud10 said:
There's no need for that, young Luke. A simple disagreement resulted in question over a narrow point, the meaning of a particular word, resulting in an explanation as to why that word was specifically chosen. Not once was that other poster, a great and noble poster, abused.

I even extended an olive branch, expressing hope that he was right and that I was wrong, that the Good Lord would indeed bestow His beneficence on us deliver BOTH Ronaldo and Fabregas. If the Good Lord allows this to happen, then for all I care Fergie could join Jose and manage Chelsea -- we'd destroy them.

But then again we may instead have to settle for Fellaini. :eek:
Click to expand...
This helps.
 
Eboue said:
jaguars-fan-gif.gif
Click to expand...
That's the best GIF ever. By the way Eboue, are you from East St. Louis? If so, is it really as bleak as I've read? I'm intrigued by places like this (and Baltimore and Detroit and Camden...)
 
Well I only have 3 Waits albums (Closing Time, Small Change and Rain - all fantastic.) I haven't found anything Detroit-related.:confused:
 
Absolutely strange choice of words from Martino. I would've expected the usual "he's not for sale, do one".
 
If Fabreags is willing to force a move by requesting a transfer, it may happen. But if he is going to wait for the club to accept our offer, it's not going to happen. Like weeks ago, I don't see it happening as Fabreags will never force a move out from his childhood club, especially after the new manager reassuring him with his plan
 
jem said:
Well I only have 3 Waits albums (Closing Time, Small Change and Rain - all fantastic.) I haven't found anything Detroit-related.:confused:
Click to expand...


East of East St. Louis is a line from "Time" off Rain Dogs. I was raised and currently live in the Detroit suburbs. But let's not get off topic from this thread. I know how important it is for people to read the latest bit of Cesc gossip.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-random-chat-thread.363091/
 
I'm moving to Baltimore in a week :eek:

In any case, Martino saying the ball is in Cesc's court is slightly encouraging, but to me the fact that he kissed the badge more or less puts this transfer dead in the water. Shame really... but I hope I'm wrong!
 
Is there a video or gif of Cesc kissing the badge from last night?

I'd like to just see it for myself before I make any judgement.
 
Shark22 said:
:lol: Somebody had to say it.

It's ineffective though. Ruud10 is immune to insults..
Click to expand...

No, I don't take the bait. At least not any longer. In m previous existence as "gatekeeper2" on TGP I tore the shit out of all of Suarez's apologists on the Liverpool board. Not that I tore the shit out of Suarez himself, mind you. (At least, not completely.)

To the best of my knowledge anywhere on earth, I first posited the "cultural misunderstanding" thesis in a kind of back-handed defense of Suarez. It caused a meltdown of epic proportions and when I had the last laugh, I had a pretty damned good laugh. They were reduced to calling ME a racist because I had the gall to posit the cultural misunderstanding thesis, long after it became the conventional defense of Suarez in the corporeal world.
 
Doesn't the "it's up to Cesc" kind of suggest we have had a bid accepted or at least somewhat of an agreement with Barca?

Also I've just watched both his goals on YouTube and I see no badge kissing.
 
I still don't get why it's improbable we could sign both Ronaldo and Fabregas. Who's to say we haven't got the money for that?

Seems plausible to me.
 
askabob said:
I'm moving to Baltimore in a week :eek:

In any case, Martino saying the ball is in Cesc's court is slightly encouraging, but to me the fact that he kissed the badge more or less puts this transfer dead in the water. Shame really... but I hope I'm wrong!
Click to expand...
Ever watched The Wire or read The Corner? On topic: I'd pay 40 million for Cesc.
 
Ryan's Beard said:
I still don't get why it's improbable we could sign both Ronaldo and Fabregas. Who's to say we haven't got the money for that?

Seems plausible to me.
Click to expand...

Ronaldo, not going to happen, but he'd cost probably £70-80 million and Fabregas, I'm guessing would be £35-40 million.

We are not going to spend over £100 million in this transfer window, we might not even spend half of that.
 
Shane88 said:
Ronaldo, not going to happen, but he'd cost probably £70-80 million and Fabregas, I'm guessing would be £35-40 million.

We are not going to spend over £100 million in this transfer window, we might not even spend half of that.
Click to expand...

Ronaldo might happen. It's not beyond the realms of possibility. I've heard ~60 million bandied about. That's plausible. So is Cesc coming for about 40. Spending over 100 isn't something we've ever done before but if it we can snag those two in one window I think we'd find the cash somewhere. It's not likely but it's not implausible.

God this is fun.
 
Ryan's Beard said:
Ronaldo might happen. It's not beyond the realms of possibility. I've heard ~60 million bandied about. That's plausible. So is Cesc coming for about 40. Spending over 100 isn't something we've ever done before but if it we can snag those two in one window I think we'd find the cash somewhere. It's not likely but it's not implausible.

God this is fun.
Click to expand...
Plus we could raise at least 50m with sales of Rooney and Nani bringing out net spend to 50m. Certainly plausible.
 
I am pretty sure we will have the money for it.

Thats why for the past few summers, Fergie did not blow the Ronaldo money. Besides, the Glazers definitely had set money aside for the new manager as would all clubs. Possibly why we floated on the NY Exchange last year too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.