I don't have one because there is nothing I could base it on outside of a range of 1 to 3/4 months.What is your gut feeling on it
I don't have one because there is nothing I could base it on outside of a range of 1 to 3/4 months.What is your gut feeling on it
Alright Mulder.Trust no one!
Anytime I attacked the Glazers on here a good few posters would turn up defending them, said posters didn't seem too bothered about footballing matters but very passionate when it came to defending the Glazers.Pro Glazer posters? What?
Pretty much or you'll drive yourself crazy trying to keep up. I'm just waiting for an official announcement from the club or Rio.
So Qatar will bring the circus from Paris. But Jim will not bring the bigger and far worse circus from Nice?Well he is a better fit by miles. Absolutely disgusting that the club is being whored off like some cheap meat to Qatar. Glazers are a disgusting lot. Knew it would come down to this. All Qatar will do is bring the circus from Paris to Manchester. That last point could be proved wrong of course, but everything from here on in, in terms of success will be hollow from my point of view.
I imagine that right now, you're feeling a bit like Alice. Hmm? Tumbling down the rabbit hole?Alright Mulder.
In theory that could be days, weeks, months, nobody knows. Exclusivity doesn't mean the party granted exclusivity is guaranteed to end up buying the thing either. That depends on all kinds of potential factors.How long will that be?
Because they're not in the business of football/sports rumors at all.
They're in the business of reporting on global events and business news and they're amongst the most respected names in the world in both arenas.
If they're reporting on anything, it's not because of PR reasons or clickbait purposes. It's because they have concrete information that they've verified.
One of the most reputable news sources in the world. Would have far more knowledge/experience reporting on a big acquisition like this than your average football writer.
It's Reuters. They don't just tweet shit for clicks.
They are not a sports outlet so you wouldn't really see them much on a sports forum.
The acquisition of Manchester United is a big business transaction though and this what Reuters normally report on.
Another reason why I would trust them over even reliable football journalists like Ducker etc on this topic is that for the likes of Ducker, their primary source would be agents or people working on the football side of the club. An acquisition is something these people wouldn't know much about and wouldn't really have first hand information. So the news we see reported in Telegraph or Times is probably coming from sources on the football side of things, who wouldn't necessarily be up to date.
Reuters on the other hand would have lawyers and M&A experts as their sources who are likely to know more about this kind of thing.
Reuters aren't sports journalists they usually report on world events and big business transactions.
Basically their source is most likely from Raine Group and not from the club unlike the sources in the UK.
They are also known as very reliable in the business world.
Noted, appreciate the replies. I don't follow finance and business acquisition so, although I'm familiar with Reuters, I have no clue as to their reliability. A quick look on google at fact checking etc has them as fairly reliable.They're a financial data and news company, the second biggest after Bloomberg. They have excellent sources and unlike clickbait football news, financial news is virtually always accurate because it affects deals, share prices etc. They will be getting the information from people involved in this transaction and it will be verified.
Sports journos don't have those contacts, they know the people within the club and on the football side, and they don't have such a high reporting responsibility. Probably nobody within the club knows what is going on; all of them from Arnold down are at risk of the boot when the Glazers sell.
Fair enough. I read a few posts on here yesterday which said they didn't, and at that time nobody seemed to challenge the claims that they didn't either. Hence I thought it was accepted generally that the actual article was less convincing.Headline completely matched the article Pocco.
We're on the internet talking to strangers. Why are you so bothered if I have a (different) tag line? If it means so much then, yes mods, please give me a tagline to get Rightnr all giddy and make his day. Please can it say something about me explaining that I hadn't read an article but referred to other comments on here whilst asking a question? Please, it would be really funny. *insert 3 laughing emojis because it's so funny*
Give this man a tag for this.
Yes, really mind blowing.Incredible.
See responses above, and comment below for just one example of these comments. I've found the article and had a read, and it refers to what they are told by sources. If you've spent more than a minute on RedCafe then you will know this is not always a reliable way of reporting something with fact. Of course, it could well be the whole truth. But it could also be information from an unreliable source or a source with a motive for releasing the information. Not saying I know what the truth is, just that I don't know how much it can be trusted because of this. The fact they claim this is from sources and insert caveats means that this is Reuters saying "don't hold us to this, but...".‘Others have said’
So you’ve not even fecking read it, and are basing your stance on what others (who want the same outcome as you) are telling you about the article… I’m not sure if you’re being serious with that.
If so, talk about moulding reality to fit the narrative you want to believe!
No need to trust Reuters, a bunch my mates off of the internet who are also bitter about the likely outcome have told me otherwise.
Yes, although the story has a couple of caveats built in:
"While a deal remains uncertain..."
"The sources cautioned that the situation remained fluid and a new bid from Ratcliffe could prevent Sheikh Jassim from securing exclusivity."
This. I have seen some deals fall through after exclusivity, but usually it was due to a big, material surprise coming up in diligence rather than a disagreement on terms.Exclusive periods of negotiations often are about the finer detail rather than on broad terms. If exclusivity has been requested, and indeed if it's granted, it would suggest both sides think they're nearing a deal.
You wouldn't ask for or agree to an exclusivity period of you were far apart or in an early stage of a negotiation. It would waste everyone's time.
Why will it be hollow if Jassim / 92 don’t cheat…?Well he is a better fit by miles. Absolutely disgusting that the club is being whored off like some cheap meat to Qatar. Glazers are a disgusting lot. Knew it would come down to this. All Qatar will do is bring the circus from Paris to Manchester. That last point could be proved wrong of course, but everything from here on in, in terms of success will be hollow from my point of view.
The truth is out there...(somewhere)Alright Mulder.
Yes, agreed. If either Qatar or Ineos are granted exclusivity, you can probably start calling it a "done deal" without much fear of contradiction.Exclusive periods of negotiations often are about the finer detail rather than on broad terms. If exclusivity has been requested, and indeed if it's granted, it would suggest both sides think they're nearing a deal.
You wouldn't ask for or agree to an exclusivity period of you were far apart or in an early stage of a negotiation. It would waste everyone's time.
"Hollow" is subjective.Why will it be hollow if Jassim / 92 don’t cheat…?
I suppose they could, but its unlikely for a few reasons. First, Reuters wont publish it unless its properly verified. Secondly if Raine lied they would be burning bridges for the future. Then, as Manchester United is a public company there are all sorts of rules around what can and can't be said in public. Planting false rumours could definitely be seen as a way to artificially inflate share price.Noted, appreciate the replies. I don't follow finance and business acquisition so, although I'm familiar with Reuters, I have no clue as to their reliability. A quick look on google at fact checking etc has them as fairly reliable.
My only question is, would they be led by Raine Group or the Glazers to plant a false story to try to smoke out further bids? I don't even mean purposefully, but if given information by Raine, which Raine deliberately put out there to control the narrative, would they report on it or would they want proof of it's validity? I will try to find the report but I'm at work and can't be bothered sifting through this thread at the moment, hence not reading it myself.
Nope continues to drag on furtherYes, agreed. If either Qatar or Ineos are granted exclusivity, you can probably start calling it a "done deal" without much fear of contradiction.
No indication that we are there yet, though.
Qatar will bring the Circus, Sir Jim will bring the Cirque du Soleil!So Qatar will bring the circus from Paris. But Jim will not bring the bigger and far worse circus from Nice?
I don’t even think they’re lying, to me it reads as if they’ve been told nothing has changed on their end hence the Jim still favourite angle they went with.Yes, that's fair enough. But you'd think that if the source on Jim's side actually knows that Qatar is the preferred party, they wouldn't bother to blatantly lie about the actual state of affairs to their contact at TT (or the DM or whatever). Because surely that would be entirely pointless from Jim's POV - and it would also undermine their reputation as a source.
So, the logical assumption would be (would it not?) that TT are actually publishing what their source genuinely believes to be the case. Rather than making up shit because they're against Qatar on principle.
To be clear: in this scenario it's simply a matter of Reuters having a different source (one at Raine, or one close to a member of the Glazer family, who knows) than TT and that this source is privy to information not known (yet) by the bidders.
Yes, then we're in agreement, that's my point: their source has told them nothing has changed because that source genuinely believes that nothing has changed.I don’t even think they’re lying, to me it reads as if they’ve been told nothing has changed on their end hence the Jim still favourite angle they went with.
Mad they are only ones so certain about Ratcliffe though,hopefully they are gonna be eating humble pie at the end of processYes, then we're in agreement, that's my point: their source has told them nothing has changed because that source genuinely believes that nothing has changed.
(Reuters' source, on the other hand, has information the TT/DM/whatever source is not aware of.)
In other words, there's no need to call TT liars or SJR mouthpieces (again: that angle makes no feckin' sense whatsoever here), it's just a matter of whose sources are right.
By the way, I'm not accusing you personally of calling anyone anything - just a general point.
Yes, it does look odd.Mad they are only ones so certain about Ratcliffe though,hopefully they are gonna be eating humble pie at the end of process
This is just Raine group trying to get more money out of their stalking horse in the hope Qatar will match it."The sources cautioned that the situation remained fluid and a new bid from Ratcliffe could prevent Sheikh Jassim from securing exclusivity."
Also need to factor in the bidders are having to try to adhere to NDA, where Raine are probably less concerned by that as it's in their interests to leak to manipulate bids (and Raine of course hold the whip on NDA leaks etc). So it's possible the bidders do know more than they are prepared to leak to the media via 'sources'. That could easily explain the relative 'we know nothing' from SJ camp even if negotiations for exclusivity are ongoing.Yes, it does look odd.
Again, though, if we're assuming that this is all about sources, it could be as simple as this:
The Reuters source(s) get(s) their info from Raine (or possibly also from the Glazers directly), whereas the others do not: effectively, they don't know more than the bidder knows (and the bidder doesn't necessarily know what Raine knows at this point).
Don't remember ever seeing anyone who is pro Glazer on here for a long time.Anytime I attacked the Glazers on here a good few posters would turn up defending them, said posters didn't seem too bothered about footballing matters but very passionate when it came to defending the Glazers.
I would not be surprised if Jimmy is tapped out from going higher at this point, whether due to a lack of willingness or a lack of ability. Given the reports over the months, my impression is that there is only so high he is willing to go in terms of the money paid to the Glazers up front.This is just Raine group trying to get more money out of their stalking horse in the hope Qatar will match it.
As an old man (or at least someone who feels like an old man), I will say this:I am amazed that youtubers still make this story interesting enough to get people watching their content.
Harry P loves them.Don't remember ever seeing anyone who is pro Glazer on here for a long time.
Yeah but if Jassim is out they are pretty fecked. Then they can go with SJRs extremely complicated deal and extremely unhappy share holders that may end up in court. And they are still kicked out in 3 years. If they decide to stay they have to invest heavily in the coming years. The milking days are over.The news that went under the radar yesterday was the premier league financial results. Record growth across the board and with a new format coming for the Champions League and Club World Cup and talk of streaming rights being considered. The Glazer's will find it very difficult to give all that up considering that the Raine Group advised Chelsea that the club could be worth upwards of £9b with the metrics and analytics they are using. This is not over by a long shot. The Qatari are getting desperate in my view that is why they have since declaring that final bid been trying to force the narrative and the demand for exclusivity is further proof of that. Their bid is still under the Glazer's valuation. I have a hunch that the Glazers will continue to drag this out.
Well yes at some point that will become true. On the other hand he's shown a willingness to go to private finance to fill the gaps. Every time he does his offering becomes that much more compromised in terms of the returns he has to generate and unappealing to the club until he either decides he doesn't want the hate or agrees to be Glazers Mark II.I would not be surprised if Jimmy is tapped out from going higher at this point, whether due to a lack of willingness or a lack of ability. Given the reports over the months, my impression is that there is only so high he is willing to go in terms of the money paid to the Glazers up front.
Reuters are retweeting their story and taking the piss against British journos. 4 time posting in 24 hours.We getting any market madness today?