Bloomberg and Reuters both reported that the Qatari bid was viewed more favourably by the Glazers. The Bloomberg reporter stated in his interview on United View that sources from within the club (as opposed to within the Qatari camp) told him the INEOS bid is dead, unless they can pony up for a 100% buyout.
It becomes a much of a muchness if the journalist from bloomberg is citing the side of his source and the driver for the article.
It's a bit like Ornstein giving context on a podcast but not actually going into that side in his article. It doesn't make his podcast context any less valid.
Yeah he's just fleshing his story out on a platform with less scrutiny as opposed to reporting it under Bloomberg. I don't know some of you guys are very protective of any snippet of news on this and fair enough. But honestly I'm just not seeing how any of what's been reported by Reuters and Bloomberg is earth shattering news.
Reuters - Qatar are negotiating with the hope to get exclusivity (obvious) and the Glazers possibly favour Qatar (you would assume so given the first part and Qatar's money).
Bloomberg - Qatar are confident their bid will win (you would assume they would be), the Glazers possibly favour Qatar (well yeah) and the Ratcliffe bid is possibly dead (again yeah ok).
If this was a transfer saga this is the sort of stuff you hear about regularly. ''United are negotiating with club X and player Y favours United.'' ''United are confident their bid for player Y will be successful, rival club also interested but their bid may be dead due to XYZ.''
Maybe I've been jaded by too many transfer windows. I've also been fairly sure from the start that Qatar would win and that Ratcliffe would eventually be priced out (plus I believe the Glazers have only been using him to hike the price). That and I'm not particularly excited by this whole process or either of the prospective buyers, my main interest in this is just seeing the Glazers finally feck off.