Maguire to Man Utd / Man City

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, Babylon said:

They are not a majority share holder, but they still hold a considerable amount of shares in it the last time I checked.

The word 'Sky' is a bit of a clue to the link, and the likely common interests, I would have thought... Perhaps I'm being naive.

[crisp packet]

45 minutes ago, VIKTOR-LE5 said:

 

Sky Sports are desperate for this to go through, basta rds.

Every 15 mins ...this morning this has been reported .  

[Legend_in_blue]

45 minutes ago, VIKTOR-LE5 said:

 

Sky Sports are desperate for this to go through, basta rds.

Should read: 

 

*Subject to a successful tapping up process courtesy of SSN.

 

 

[shiv]

5 minutes ago, Babylon said:

They are not a majority share holder, but they still hold a considerable amount of shares in it the last time I checked.

They don’t anymore. Owned by a Canadian company. 

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

The word 'Sky' is a bit of a clue to the link, and the likely common interests, I would have thought... Perhaps I'm being naive.

Not really to be fair, often big companies buy brands and don't re-brand them purely because they know it's got a history and a legacy... but they definitely got handed a huge number of shares when it got bought, like 8 million. And I'm sure some powerful people at Sky have rather large numbers personally. 

[ozleicester]

To be fair anyone other than Sky subscribers would not have seen that... unless it was posted (time and time again) on this thread

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, shiv said:

They don’t anymore. Owned by a Canadian company. 

I don't OWN Just Eat, but I'm a share holder. The more shares you have, the more influence you have. The more shares you have, the more you stand to gain from said company performing very well. Sky have a decent shareholding in the Canadian company. 

 

"Sky said it would receive about £425m in cash and 7.6 million newly issued shares, of The Stars Group, on completion of the deal, 

[ClaphamFox]

15 minutes ago, Babylon said:

They are not a majority share holder, but they still hold a considerable amount of shares in it the last time I checked.

Not any more. As of last year, Sky Betting is owned by the Stars Group, a Canadian gaming and gambling company.

Sky owns 7.6 million shares in the Stars Group - of 287.72 million shares in issue, so 2.6%. I'm finding it difficult to believe that Sky Sports is told to broadcast/publish stories imply in order to service a tiny share in a betting company.

 

 

[Buce]

19 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

It IS relevant. I see your point but in actual fact I think differently. If you had read every post (and I do not expect anyone to wade through so much drivel in this thread) you'd have noticed I also suspected trolling on his part, and I also cited  The Bear to him as a way to behave. I'm as keen as anyone to root out weird accounts (and goodness knows, I've seen some oddities lately - new accounts with strange names, for example), but I also know what it's like to be accused of being something I'm not, which has also happened on here.

 

I took the trouble to write to thecarrickfan, and the response I got was not one of a troll - more likely a misguided youngster who'd made a series of mistakes , and don't get me wrong, I made it clear I was no fan of his 'contributions'. However, let's hypothesise that you're right, and I'm wrong, as it is entirely possible. Even if his 'succession of one-liner posts' were entirely tedious and adding nothing (and on that we agree), there is STILL no justification for people 'martyring' themselves in the cause, as if making personal attacks are some kind of heroism. Once one starts justifying that sort of thing, it's a very slippery slope.

 

The characters in  LOTF are symbolic and Piggy, who becomes the victim when civilisation breaks down (and who I assume you are casting as Carrick) represents intellect and rationalism. In what world does Carrick represent that?

 

 As for 'people martyring themselves in the cause', that was one person. One. Everything else was very low-level abuse - if indeed it was abuse, which I personally don't think it was - aimed at someone behaving like a príck on another team's forum.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, VIKTOR-LE5 said:

 

Sky Sports are desperate for this to go through, basta rds.

****ing shameless that. People still pay this lot money. 

[HighPeakFox]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The characters in  LOTF are symbolic and Piggy, who becomes the victim when civilisation breaks down (and who I assume you are casting as Carrick) represents intellect and rationalism. In what world does Carrick represent that?

 

 As for 'people martyring themselves in the cause', that was one person. One. Everything else was very low-level abuse - if indeed it was abuse, which I personally don't think it was - aimed at someone behaving like a **** on another team's forum.

I think we could perhaps have an interesting discussion about symbolism or parallel behaviours, but now's not the time nor the place. I stand by my point but acknowledge yours with respect.

 

Now, I hear rumours that Maguire has stated that he wants to leave for United because 'it's what my infant child demands'... (and no, I don't mean his agent. Although...)

[VIKTOR-LE5]

 

United fans smh.

[Babylon]

14 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Not any more. As of last year, Sky Betting is owned by the Stars Group, a Canadian gaming and gambling company.

Sky owns 7.6 million shares in the Stars Group - of 287.72 million shares in issue, so 2.6%. I'm finding it difficult to believe that Sky Sports is told to broadcast/publish stories imply in order to service a tiny share in a betting company.

It serves multiple purposes, one of which could be that.  I own shares of certain companies and use their services rather than others because of that, and that's just a couple of grand here and there. So if someone at a decent level in Sky serves to make money, I would certainly not rule that out. Obviously there are other reasons, click bait to make advertising money, viewing numbers for advertising money. It's all about the £££££'s and they'll make every penny they can from these things. 

 

A 3% holding is still a decent amount and certainly enough to keep people invested and interested. 

[Ian Nacho]

Surely Sky have broken some sort of rules during this transfer window. Its almost like external tapping up. 

[VIKTOR-LE5]

2 minutes ago, Ian Nacho said:

Surely Sky have broken some sort of rules during this transfer window. Its almost like external tapping up. 

You made my point, but you were confused by my post?.

[Lesta Legend]

21 minutes ago, shiv said:

They don’t anymore. Owned by a Canadian company. 

Of which sky own shares (Stars Group)

[AKCJ]

1 hour ago, VIKTOR-LE5 said:

 

Sky Sports are desperate for this to go through, basta rds.

 That's ****ing laughable. They're absolutely gagging for this move to happen.

[ClaphamFox]

36 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

Sky's coverage of sport is generally very good, but the rolling sports news channel struggles I think, especially in the close season like this one when all is said and done, not a lot is happening. So they just have to churn out endless streams of bollocks to fill the time when there is not actually a lot happening.

 

But, if this transfer happens, or if it doesn't it will be still big news and as evidenced by the 340+ pages of equally endless bollocks (mostly) here people do enjoy speculating about it!

I think this is much closer to the truth than bizarre conspiracy theories based on Sky's tiny share ownership in the gaming company that owns - among many other things - Sky Bet. The fact is that football fans are interested in transfer stories - we all want to know which players might be coming to our club, and which might be leaving. That's why the media focuses so much attention on transfers during the close season, when there is little else to report on. Most of their stories are sourced by off-the-record conversations with people who may or may not be in the know, and as a consequence a lot of the stories broadcast and published are highly speculative. There will be some stories that are more solid, but it's hard to separate those from the dross. Fans lap it up when the stories are about players their club may be buying, but can get very upset when the stories about players leaving their clubs. But the bottom line is this: the whole thing is driven by demand. If people weren't interested in these stories, the media wouldn't bother reporting them.

[bmt]

The whole way this has been reported has been sickening to be honest.

[sdb]

1 hour ago, VIKTOR-LE5 said:

 

Sky Sports are desperate for this to go through, basta rds.

Wes Morgan £125m*

 

*subject to someone bidding £125m for Wes Morgan and Leicester and Morgan accepting the proposed deal with said club

[UniFox21]

1 hour ago, VIKTOR-LE5 said:

 

Sky Sports are desperate for this to go through, basta rds.

This is pathetic. The "*subject to completion" is quite a big step ya know, this is by no meaning done, so why do this ffs

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, UniFox21 said:

This is pathetic. The "*subject to completion" is quite a big step ya know, this is by no meaning done, so why do this ffs

Click Click, Click.

Post on twitter

Click, Click, Click

Post on twitter

repeat

[UniFox21]

5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Click Click, Click.

Post on twitter

Click, Click, Click

Post on twitter

repeat

They're all about clicks, and lose so much integrity 

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

They're all about clicks, and lose so much integrity 

 

Nah.

 

You can't lose what you don't have.

[Nalis]

I dont think Sky have an influence to force anything between us and Man Utd and arent being purposely sinister, they are just trying to completely milk the most out of this transfer saga as there is fvck all else happening. Reckon they'd ideally want Maguire to sign for Man U on deadline day (rather than now) in order to drag the arse out of this.