I don't have one because there is nothing I could base it on outside of a range of 1 to 3/4 months.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I don't have one because there is nothing I could base it on outside of a range of 1 to 3/4 months.
Alright Mulder.
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.
So Qatar will bring the circus from Paris. But Jim will not bring the bigger and far worse circus from Nice?
Qatar and the Glazers will sign an exclusivity agreement, which will prohibit the Glazers from negotiating with any other party for some period certain.
Look for the deal to be negotiated during this exclusivity period. How long will that be? No one will know unless there is a leak.
Look for the deal to be negotiated during this exclusivity period. How long will that be? No one will know unless there is a leak.
I imagine that right now, you're feeling a bit like Alice. Hmm? Tumbling down the rabbit hole?
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.
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.
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.
Give this man a tag for this.
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*
Yes, really mind blowing.
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.
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...".
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.
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.
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.
Why will it be hollow if Jassim / 92 don’t cheat…?
Utd generates a feck ton of money, and would generate even more without utterly inept ownership.
If 92 Foundation make good decisions and just run the club with even BASIC efficiency, I see no logical reason to view Utd’s achievements as ‘hollow’.
English sports reporters having strong Ratcliffe ties/sources would contextualise much of the coverage. If Ratcliffe wasn't in the driving seat then the stories along lines of "still waiting to hear" , "no news" and "Glazers undecided" would make sense if the source of that information was one of the bidders whose offer wasn't being seriously entertained, but leveraged by the sellers as an obvious negotiation tactic
Maybe when we read "both sides still waiting to hear" one side was and assumed the same was true on the other side.
Maybe when we read "both sides still waiting to hear" one side was and assumed the same was true on the other side.
The truth is out there...(somewhere)
Yes, 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.
"Hollow" is subjective.
But you know precisely why people are against this thing.
They suspect (rightly so) that it's a state bid. That in itself makes the "don't cheat" thing irrelevant, because the "state bid" thing still remains.
Hypothetically: Would I be against a new owner who happens to be a Qatari national but who is a) not connected to the Qatari state in any meaningful way and b) not about to use their wealth to cheat in a manner similar to City? No, I would not. Why would I be against that?
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.
Nope continues to drag on further
So Qatar will bring the circus from Paris. But Jim will not bring the bigger and far worse circus from Nice?
Qatar will bring the Circus, Sir Jim will bring the Cirque du Soleil!
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, 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.
Mad they are only ones so certain about Ratcliffe though,hopefully they are gonna be eating humble pie at the end of process
Fans should not wind themselves up over the club sale when information is obviously always going to be very limited. The Glazer's are happy to drag the sale out, purely for the purposes of squeezing, playing both bidders, just shows the utter disdain they have for both Man United and the fans. Because next season looks like it could be another Hail Mary, built on a farcical transfer window. Meanwhile, competitor clubs are getting transfers done early – right players, right prices – and United still have their hands tied. Good for Qatar for requesting exclusivity. It's about time the Glazer's committed.
I am amazed that youtubers still make this story interesting enough to get people watching their content.
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).
This is just Raine group trying to get more money out of their stalking horse in the hope Qatar will match it.
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.
Don't remember ever seeing anyone who is pro Glazer on here for a long time.
Will we feel qatari today?
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.
As an old man (or at least someone who feels like an old man), I will say this:
That actual interesting content (compared to, say, an obnoxious cnut playing a video game while commenting on it in a barely coherent manner) gets clicks/views seems almost reassuring.
ETA Edited for clarity.
Harry P loves them.
Wake me up when OT was renovated into the 21st century.
I still think there’ll be some kind of further news this weekend…
Maybe blind faith, but I do!
Maybe blind faith, but I do!
We getting any market madness today?
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.
What in the wide, wide world o’ sports is a goin’ on here?
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.
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.
Of course the Qataris can (and I think will) outbid whatever he offers if they want to but they might just decide not to in which case we are stuck with a toxic deal. It's a risky approach from the point of view of the long term health of the club but of course the Glazers don't give a fek about that because they are rentier capitalist scumbags.
Reuters are retweeting their story and taking the piss against British journos. 4 time posting in 24 hours.
- Status