MDFC Manager
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 24,768
The Times and The Telegraph (and Ineos) think Ineos are in at least as good of a position as Qatar - they are probably both (Reuters vs Times/Telegraph) right (it looks like both bids are verging on entering into exclusivity, because the Glazers/Raine have decided to advance both bids together until the last possible moment). It looks 50-50 at this stage - both sides think they are winning.Yes but what does TimesSport online think?
The Reuters guy is the only real journalist in the tedious saga so far. Stone, Jacobs and company are less journalists than spokesmen for higher-ups at Raine/INEOS/the Glazer family, used to control the narrative for self-serving ends, or for damage control when actual information gets out.This is a lot more reliable than any of the football journos. Reuters is not in the business of clickbait or plain old making things up for attention. If they're reporting it they will have good sources telling them this, either from the commercial arm of the club or more likely the advisors.
I'm aware of HBJs investments while he had power, QIA etc roles. My post wasn't about whether or not HBJ has enough wealth/consortium bid. It was more about whether SJ was having to be the face for any investment that stemmed from HBJ. If indeed that was true. I'd imagine there will be a number of individuals wanting to increase political power/prominence with Qatar.With regard to the last point, SJ’s father has already done massive investments in UK, he is known as ‘the man who owns half of London’ owning among others the Harrods.
However, the United purchase seems to be too big for him too. Even if some unofficial estimates of his wealth are true, putting him at 20B net worth, spending one third of it in a club seems not very logical (bear in mind that most of the wealth is in assets, not cash). Especially with him saying before that he is not a fan of football (albeit he green lighted the purchase of PSG).
I think most likely is a Qatari consortium with some unofficial heavy backing from the state.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It said in the quote it was from the Guardian, and I stated who made the statement. The age was to show it's not knee jerk and shilling for Ineos. It's disingenuous to imply it wasn't genuine.
Just to put your selectively scruitinous mind at rest.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/revealed-qatars-world-cup-slaves
Have you got links to the lots that has changed?
Personally I fundamentally disagree that the expansion of influence of undemocratic states is a good thing. In my opinion it normslises authoritarianism much more than it helps the oppressed therein.
That is verbatim the Reuters piece - copy and paste job.Sky News Arabia: United is considering granting negotiation rights to the Qatari group to buy the club
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It’s TimesSport though. It’s Matt Lawton. This isn’t a football transfer, he has no credibility or track record over stories like these.The Times and The Telegraph (and Ineos) think Ineos are in at least as good of a position as Qatar - they are probably both (Reuters vs Times/Telegraph) right (it looks like both bids are verging on entering into exclusivity, because the Glazers/Raine have decided to advance both bids together until the last possible moment). It looks 50-50 at this stage - both sides think they are winning.
RMC and Reuters Vs English press nowTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Mate you did this yesterday as well , you are being disingenuous both can't be right because Reuters are reporting Once Qatari's enter into exclusivity negotiations with other parties would cease .The Times and The Telegraph (and Ineos) think Ineos are in at least as good of a position as Qatar - they are probably both (Reuters vs Times/Telegraph) right (it looks like both bids are verging on entering into exclusivity, because the Glazers/Raine have decided to advance both bids together until the last possible moment). It looks 50-50 at this stage - both sides think they are winning.
You'll still find people in here claiming that these are secondary to Ben Jacobs, Miguel Delaney, Mike Keegan - purely because they've been milking the takeover to write columns for months.RMC France are very reliable, no? Between Reuters, RMC, and Rio Ferdinand (Tier 0), we cooking!
It has been reported that SJR is in negotiations with Raine, whilst SJ entourage are dealing directly with the Glazers. Make of that what you will.Mate you did this yesterday as well , you are being disingenuous both can't be right because Reuters are reporting Once Qatari's enter into exclusivity negotiations with other parties would cease .
Yes you're rightThat is verbatim the Reuters piece - copy and paste job.
Just need the fourth R (Raine) to confirm.You'll still find people in here claiming that these are secondary to Ben Jacobs, Miguel Delaney, Mike Keegan - purely because they've been milking the takeover to write columns for months.
I'm going with RRR.
There is no indication that anyone has been chosen to enter into exclusivity. The Qataris clearly think they will be the chosen ones - Ineos think the same. One of them will of course be wrong, but there's no way for us to know which (it's quite possible that even Raine don't know at this stage).It’s TimesSport though. It’s Matt Lawton. This isn’t a football transfer, he has no credibility or track record over stories like these.
There is no indication at all that Jim is in exclusivity talks with Glazers. Do you have a link to this?
Yeah, people rely on Reuters for investment decisions and other important stuff. They're not going to report rumours. Financial press is much more reliable than your average news source.The Reuters guy is the only real journalist in the tedious saga so far. Stone, Jacobs and company are less journalists than spokesmen for higher-ups at Raine/INEOS/the Glazer family, used to control the narrative for self-serving ends, or for damage control when actual information gets out.
No it isn't. They can both be correct (and probably are) - both sides think they are winning and the reports coming out of both bids are, I am sure, therefore accurate. We're just hearing two sides of the story. None of Reuters, The Times or The Telegraph are in the business of making things up.RMC and Reuters Vs English press now
I think Qatar have been ahead since last Friday, I'm surprised we've not heard much or anything about an improved bid from Jim since. Plus we've had no pro Ratcliffe PR recently. Whereas Qatar has been in overdrive and the share price has moved north for a week at good volume and all. So there's definitely a lot of people betting on Jassim. It's over to you Jim. Can he score? He always scoresIt’s TimesSport though. It’s Matt Lawton. This isn’t a football transfer, he has no credibility or track record over stories like these.
There is no indication at all that Jim is in exclusivity talks with Glazers. Do you have a link to this?
Which hasn't happened yet, has it.Mate you did this yesterday as well , you are being disingenuous both can't be right because Reuters are reporting Once Qatari's enter into exclusivity negotiations with other parties would cease .
Sorry, no. It's not about half-full or half-empty. It's about relevance.A glass-half-full or empty. You've simply taken the latter stand. Which I suppose is your prerogative.
Ineos probably only thought that because they were being used to squeeze QatarNo it isn't. They can both be correct (and probably are) - both sides think they are winning and the reports coming out of both bids are, I am sure, accurate.
It’s not said about Jim because nobody is saying it?There is no indication that anyone has been chosen to enter into exclusivity. The Qataris clearly think they will be the chosen ones - Ineos think the same. One of them will of course be wrong, but there's no way for us to know which (it's quite possible that even Raine don't know at this stage).
Multiple sources close to talks played down claims from the news agency Reuters that Sheikh Jassim Bin Hamad Al Thani is “negotiating exclusivity” ahead of rivals in his battle to buy the club. Effectively, the same could be said of Sir Jim Ratcliffe, one insider pointed out to Telegraph Sport.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...ted-takeover-news-share-trading-paused-qatar/
I am just making sense of what's reported by Reuters they are claiming once exclusivity is granted to Qatari's negotiations with other bidder would cease for a specific period .It has been reported that SJR is in negotiations with Raine, whilst SJ entourage are dealing directly with the Glazers. Make of that what you will.
Yes, perhaps. Rightly or wrongly, Ineos are confident of winning and the Times are simply reporting that fact. If Ineos then lose, it does not mean that the reporting of the Times was inaccurate.Ineos probably only thought that because they were being used to squeeze Qatar
there's only gonna be one winner here
Agreed. There were a few posters in here yesterday in complete denial and disrespecting a former player who loves Utd, who is a fan himself. Just because they don't want it to be true.Fans just blindly shouting him down and getting their blood up was quite a show yesterday. Shooting down 2/3 other pieces of news that came along yesterday really just because they set their “everybody who believed that is a muppet” stance shone a light on some of the so called sensible posters on here.
I’m saying that as someone who wants Qatar to win but immediately sell to someone else right away.
Hopefully we all have level heads today
Times are reporting INEOS being favourite as fact so it’s not based on an opinion from one sideYes, perhaps. Rightly or wrongly, Ineos are confident of winning and the Times are simply reporting that fact. If Ineos then lose, it does not mean that the reporting of the Times was inaccurate.
The Times report that, as of yesterday evening, Ineos are still the favourite. It's clear that Reuters are getting their information from the Qatari side and are accurately reporting it (Reuters don't make things up), while The Times/Telegraph are getting their information from the Ineos side and are accurately reporting it (The Times/Telegraph don't make things up).It’s not said about Jim because nobody is saying it?
If Jim was in the same boat it would be plastered everywhere, let’s be honest.
Let’s say you’re correct, you’ve broken the Reuters code. How can you dance around the part of the article that says Qatar are now ahead and that’s the bid that the Glazers want to accept? How does that play into your 50/50 theory?
To me it was just baffling people dismissing Rio who clearly has links still at the club, and even if he didn't, has more contacts in the football world than this forum combined and multiplied by a millionFans just blindly shouting him down and getting their blood up was quite a show yesterday. Shooting down 2/3 other pieces of news that came along yesterday really just because they set their “everybody who believed that is a muppet” stance shone a light on some of the so called sensible posters on here.
I’m saying that as someone who wants Qatar to win but immediately sell to someone else right away.
Hopefully we all have level heads today
As much as a contest as Qatar versus Ratcliffe on what's best for the club.RMC and Reuters Vs English press now