Yes. It's go time.RMC France are very reliable, no? Between Reuters, RMC, and Rio Ferdinand (Tier 0), we cooking!
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Reuters sticking with their story….
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.
Big day today.
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.
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.
The point also stems from percieved growth within the Al Thani house, and how financing the Al Thani house with the state-private model is mathematically possible, but in reality may not be. e.g. 20000 Al Thani members in the 1990, the average birthrate in qatar is reported at 1.8 there are examples of Sheikhs having 13, even the Emir has seven sons and six daughters. If that birthrate within the Sheikhs/Al Thani house is boarder than the examples, it is likely to create generational wealth issues. Wealth is spread thinner rather than it being possible to 5x wealth over a generation plus time variation of the wealth just to stand still. That is an example, i'm not suggesting it's fact, and only for demonstrating it's quite complex, in part, because there are many unknowns.
Sky News Arabia: United is considering granting negotiation rights to the Qatari group to buy the club
Well that's our major point of disagreement then because to me it's absolutely clear that things do improve over time in places like Qatar and increased global spotlight can only accelerate that process.
I gave you many examples of this at the time of the World Cup, obviously there is still a lot that needs to improve but the direction of travel in undeniably on the right path.
https://www.ilo.org/infostories/en-GB/Stories/Country-Focus/world-cup-qatar
Big day today?
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?
Have a good feeling this saga is gonna end soon. Even though the leeches will be there for a bit until things gets sorted, still light at the end of the tunnel.
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 .
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!
I'm going with RRR.
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 you're right
Just need the fourth R (Raine) to confirm.
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/
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.
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.
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 scores
Which hasn't happened yet, has it.
Sorry, no. It's not about half-full or half-empty. It's about relevance.
If you think that this ownership of United is unacceptable or problematic if it's tied to Qatar state, then it's a problem unless it can be convincingly shown that this is not the case. If it's just unclear, then it's a problem. And showing that it's unclear is not a valid argument against opposing that bid on these grounds. Unclarity gives ample reason for doing so.
If you don't think that this ownership of United is unacceptable or problematic if it's tied to Qatar state, then it's irrelevant if it's clear or not.
Bought 2 shares for USD 25.2 each. Now I am literally invested in this topic.
Ineos probably only thought that because they were being used to squeeze Qatar
there's only gonna be one winner here
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?
Can't believe we are actually going to be owned by a foreign state. Disgusting.
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 .
Poster is claiming both Times and Reuters could be right that Exclusivity could be granted to both the parties which is oxymoron in itself and would also mean Reuters reporting is wrong and process basically hasn't progressed either .
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.
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.
There's far too much smoke now to be no fire. And I initially preferred SJR for obvious reasons but after reading up on him and Ineos, if we don't land Qatar as new owners I would be very concerned if Brexit Jim and his gang of cronies were in charge.
Hit piece on ol wrinkly bollocks from the British press. They know.
And if anyone is excited or maybe the opposite - worried, by the Times and Lawton's pro-Sir Jim articles.
He wrote last Sunday that we would find out who the preferred bidder is this week, with a big photo of Sir Jim outside Old Trafford accompanying the article.
The Times know as much as most of the UK media i.e. sweet F.A.
He wrote last Sunday that we would find out who the preferred bidder is this week, with a big photo of Sir Jim outside Old Trafford accompanying the article.
The Times know as much as most of the UK media i.e. sweet F.A.
Times are reporting INEOS being favourite as fact so it’s not based on an opinion from one side
If you can't trust the British media, then who can you trust.
I did too, we can blame @Pexbo when they're worth 1.20 a share
For many this is great news, and I would put myself in the pro Qatar camp, but until this is signed sealed and delivered I am being cautious. Given exclusivity to SJ does not mean that the Glazers will eventually ask so much that he still walks away, hopefully not, but they do not come across as the easiest people to deal with patiently.
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).
Yes, one of the bids will end up losing and their confidence will prove to be misplaced, but it doesn't mean that the reporting of Reuters or The Times is inaccurate. Given that Qatar and Ineos both think they are ahead, I don't see how we (as outsiders looking in) can determine which information should be given greater weight, hence 50-50. The reality of the situation may not be 50-50 - it might be that Ineos are 90% of the way there or it could be that Ineos are going to be told this afternoon that they have lost - we can't possibly know. But, as things stand, Qatar and Ineos are confident of beating each other.
Last edited:
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 million
As much as a contest as Qatar versus Ratcliffe on what's best for the club.
- Status