Takeover?

Status
Not open for further replies.

None of the hammers fans seem to think its them - It would be for the full 100% if it was.
 
BlackToffee said:
My sources are not only better than their, its the original source!!!! All of the quotes and variations thereof are taken from the original WAM press release. There are no other sources. Nobody has questioned the legitimacy of the agency.

I am not too sure if the UAE understand the British humour of "April fools day", especially as that went some months ago.
Click to expand...

OK, imagine that Reuters had a report that a Premier League club had been bought. Nobody else reported it. All other news agencies reported it as a rumour.

Would you believe it purely based on Reuters' report? If not, why do you put more faith in WAM than Reuters? As a secondary question, why do no UK journalists consider WAM's report to be a fact? Why do the Guardian say the report was greeted with scepticism?

News agencies make mistakes, either due to an error or because they are mislead. It happens.

Sorry for the venom, but short of someone from any club coming up and saying "Its a fair cop, its us gov", I am not sure what more evidence, sources you need?
Click to expand...

I simply want a source that is considered to be reliable on these matters. There is currently one source, with no corroboration, and other journalists are not treating that source as reliable. They all think it's a rumour, and nobody has it as a lead story.

This isn't to say it isn't true, but at the moment there isn't the evidence to be sure.
 
I thought that there was a rule that when you got over a certain % of ownership then a rule was triggered whereby the remaining shareholders would have to sell up?

So this could well be a full takeover, just with the remaining shareholders having to sell up after the initial 60% has changed hands.

Its probably all rubbish.
 

pezzer1 said:
can someone sum up what has been said on last 35 pages
Click to expand...

There was a report late last night that an investor from United Arab Emirates had bought 60% of a "top flight" premiership team and would be like a shadow Chairman of the club.

Rumour went round it was either us, Pompey or West Ham...most likely us...and a rumour popped up that talksport mentioned that Kenwright has sold up.

But no one is announcing anything till Tuesday.

But being as no real news paper has printed anything - which they probably wont do as it was about 11pm went it come on - or any major sites reporting it as pure fact.

Sky Sports | Football | Premier League | News | Middle East money for top club

Either its bullshiit or because the FA generally have to go through any investor now with a fine tooth comb, no one is reporting it.
 

pezzer1 said:
Why do you think its us?
Click to expand...

60% is a big share.

If true it wont be the top 4, Spurs, Villa, Citeh because they've got money. Pompey are being taken over, but the report says this has nothing to do with them. And West Ham have already completed a deal.

Some rumour said it was Birmingham...but their fans put who has stake in their club up and no one holds 60% of the club.
 
lordyefc said:
OK, imagine that Reuters had a report that a Premier League club had been bought. Nobody else reported it. All other news agencies reported it as a rumour.

Would you believe it purely based on Reuters' report? If not, why do you put more faith in WAM than Reuters? As a secondary question, why do no UK journalists consider WAM's report to be a fact? Why do the Guardian say the report was greeted with scepticism?

News agencies make mistakes, either due to an error or because they are mislead. It happens.

I simply want a source that is considered to be reliable on these matters. There is currently one source, with no corroboration, and other journalists are not treating that source as reliable. They all think it's a rumour, and nobody has it as a lead story.

This isn't to say it isn't true, but at the moment there isn't the evidence to be sure.
Click to expand...

I normally don't like hyperthetical questions but here goes.

If it was reported by Reuters, I'd believe that something had happened. Like you I'd want to dig a bit deeper and be clear about the context, for example the £150m bid for the skunks which turned out to be a Sunderland supporter.

Journalist checked various sources and discovered the truth. Apart from the Guardian, who use a half quote from Joleon Lescott to prove he's going to Man City, I've not seen anyone else talk about skepticism so while I read the Guardian, I recognnise that they can be as duplicitous as any other media source.

I don't know the history of WAM press releases to confirm if its a reliable news agency or not. I have no evidence to say its not reliable. Obvously, someone could be lying to them, but given that its a UAE newsagecy, and not a Western one, the liar would have to come from the United Arab Emirates.

I am not sure why such a man would issue a press release saying that he's bought into a club when its not true. Remember the news agency has named the buyer - its not a statement which says an unnamed mystery buyer is buying an unnamed mystery club.

So you would need to answer the question why would the Sheikh lie?

As said before the term "leading" is ambiguous and in all honesty does not mean its a top 10 prem club. All investors big up the club they are investing in.

Again, given its a one sentence statement which says it will be clarified in a few days, I reallly don't see why we need some definete proof before then. We just enjoy the speculation, pick up any titbit of info, and wait until Wednesday when all will be revealled.
 
lordyefc said:
Would you believe it purely based on Reuters' report? If not, why do you put more faith in WAM than Reuters? As a secondary question, why do no UK journalists consider WAM's report to be a fact? Why do the Guardian say the report was greeted with scepticism?

News agencies make mistakes, either due to an error or because they are mislead. It happens.

/
I am not a journlist, and while we quite righty castigate them, for being lazy etc, they do have a certain methodology. Sorry, second post on this as an after thought.

First the newsagency is reporting a statement, not investigating a story. It has printed information that it has received, so its not investigative journalism, its simply reporting a statement it has received.

As a journalist the questions would go something like this;

1. Does the person in the statement exist?
2. Is there any evidence that they have the means to purchase 60% of a prem club?
3. Is there any dirt on them?
4. Is there any other source in the mystery club to corroborate the report (well, in this instance, no, as no club would break the confidence before its announced, unless the buyer wanted this to happen)
5. Are there any clubs in the prem who are likely candidates to sell 60% of their holding?

After you've answered those questions, it then becomes pure speculation whch is what we have until Wednesday.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top