On the positive we may actually be able to shift the players who won’t flush because we were trying to find value in the market with sales.
No longer would need to sell them for a decent return, which is what we have needed for many years now.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
On the positive we may actually be able to shift the players who won’t flush because we were trying to find value in the market with sales.
No longer would need to sell them for a decent return, which is what we have needed for many years now.
Doesn't your media literacy tell you that the reuters piece is an obvious briefing?
There’s a reason why stones is hailed as super accurate, because he never says anything until it’s been confirmed in public space.
Again wrong. The bid deadline was mid feb, Raine group were appointed in November and interested parties would have been in contact from then. Do you seriously believe that first contact was made mid Feb (when that was the bid deadline?)
Historically it’s not even been the fact we’ve been given high prices which has caused us problems. It’s the fact we are incredibly slow at doing anything and end up missing out on transfers. Hopefully we will be quicker with making decisions going forward. If any clubs gets silly with their quotes, we can move on quickly to other targets.
The world knows Man City have silly money yet they are still able to complete transfers efficiently.
Agree
No, not really. Reuters is a very trusted news source, and if they're running an exclusive like this then it's probably not far off. The pro Jim lot are just raging that they bought into every story that British journos have running for a month or two now and look like mugs, so they're trying to discredit actually reputable news sources
It’s DONE.
Reuters won’t be putting up a significant story unless it’s coming from horses mouth. They have an incredible reputation to defend.
British Journos knows shit!
Reuters won’t be putting up a significant story unless it’s coming from horses mouth. They have an incredible reputation to defend.
British Journos knows shit!
Reuters is fairly big deal
This. Having backup plans gives us bargaining power and prevents us from being taken to the cleaners.
Yeah, if jassim and his team show that they aren't going to be fleeced and tbh this bidding process has me somewhat optimistic that they won't be, then we'll likely see the end of the Woodward style of overpaying for everyone
Head of US M&A at Reuters isn't going to publish this without it coming from a serious source with verification
Here is what Reuters is reporting.
Obviously, Qatar and SJR have wanted exclusivity from the start. They would have exchanged merger agreement drafts with the Glazers, ironed out potential bid details, etc.
The news today is that the Glazers are prepared to sign a binding legal document with Qatar that will prevent the Glazers from engaging in any negotiations with SJR for a specified period of time. Once this document is signed, the intention will be for the Glazers and Qatar to get to a signed deal. This binding legal document is being negotiated now.
This is huge for the Qatar bid, and represents a major development in negotiations.
Obviously, Qatar and SJR have wanted exclusivity from the start. They would have exchanged merger agreement drafts with the Glazers, ironed out potential bid details, etc.
The news today is that the Glazers are prepared to sign a binding legal document with Qatar that will prevent the Glazers from engaging in any negotiations with SJR for a specified period of time. Once this document is signed, the intention will be for the Glazers and Qatar to get to a signed deal. This binding legal document is being negotiated now.
This is huge for the Qatar bid, and represents a major development in negotiations.
I mean, it's a pretty significant update, even if it's not completed yet.
Mid February didn't include bids? Unless I missed something the mid february deadline was about tabling interest, it wasn't a negotiation or bidding phase. So yeah, unless I missed something the mid-february deadline didn't include prior formal talks.
Wait, who is discrediting reuters?
The source could be Raine. No one is saying the report is wrong ?
Whilst I certainly don't want the Qatari bid to be successful for several reasons, I do think the whole potential of bypassing FFP is slightly overblown.
I would imagine they would bring in extra sponsorships from Qatar, without doubt.
However to redevelop the owners can use external money without it conflicting on FFP,
Also City were a different entity to we are now, meaning the owners there wanted everything as quick as possible from a lower baseline.
Here United are still making money and can till grow their financial revenue streams.
So whilst I agree to a point with what you are saying, I don't think it's inevitable that Qatari owners would flout rules.
What’s clear is that Reuters has a source that cracked and is an actual source while nobody else has.
This. I've worked on some transactions where the seller chose their preferred buyer after a few rounds of bidding; in all these cases, there were a few days in between the buyer being selected and the legal paperwork being signed to officially kick off the exclusivity period. It's happening.
It’s becoming evident throughout this process the Glazers are probably the biggest culprits at how slow we are with getting anything done. It’s no wonder we’ve regularly missed out on targets where it involves more than one club in the race.
Yeah and I am certain that's why Jacobs and SSN sources are saying the same thing
What's the conflicting report? Can threadmarks be updated please
+2
Nothing wrong with that, people's thirst for transfer info is why all these POS "sports journos" exist.
I've grown tired of it and rely on stone/BBC
Reuters are concrete solid in terms of reliability. They won’t be posting a story out just for the sake of it compared to a Mark Goldbridge or Ben Jacobs. They will have properly done their ground work before posting something as big as this.
Reuters is as certain as it gets. They could end up not coming to an agreement, but it certainly seems like the Qataris are in the lead.
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...d-bidders-cost-deadline-tonight-b1060705.html
The initial deadline set by the Glazers for the first round of bids was on Friday, February 17. There was then a second round after the major consortiums met with United staff members, including chief executive Richard Arnold. Finally, Friday’s deadline signalled the end of the bidding process.
The second round is where those who got through the first round were vetted and then got to look at Uniteds books
Friday's deadline was before Easter. The preferred bidder was supposed to be chosen at that point.
BIdding war was expected but it didn't materialise and as we know Glazers even went outside the process, calling PSG chairman to try and get more money our of Qatar
Yeah think it's mental that some people are saying nothing has happened today. We have had information from THREE different sources for a start.
There are no conflicting reports. It's all semantics.
If I had to guess I’d say that was a strategic leak from the Glazers or Raine to signal the balance has shifted considerably to encourage a final Hail Mary from Ratcliffe before they hit the button.
Yeah Dan Snyder isn’t a very nice man it seems. The process is long, we as football fans aren’t very patient. The Glazers are businessmen as much as we hate them they are selling their golden egg, it was always going to be a long process.
He seems to be suggesting that Stoney is withholding information until he's given the green light
I don’t think either of the sales I mentioned were good examples for this particular process to be fair. It was just out of interest.
Sky Sports, Ben Jacobs and Simon Stone may as well be the sun or Daily Star when it comes to business and acquisitions.
They will absolutely not have any insight or knowledge as this is a business transaction whereas Reuters absolutely tier 1 and not to mention their editor and head of B&A news is reporting this.
They will absolutely not have any insight or knowledge as this is a business transaction whereas Reuters absolutely tier 1 and not to mention their editor and head of B&A news is reporting this.
What Stone said doesn't even contradict Reuters though. "No exclusivity granted" is legally true until the LOI is signed.
You think Stoney is a better source than Reuters head of M&A? In anycase Reuters didn't say exclusivity had been granted, they said the negotiations to sign the exclusivity agreement were underway
They can only go off club sources or sources close the potential buyers -
I don’t think it’s about their specific knowledge
Exactly and its what United legally would be allowed to say anyway
- Status