Originally Posted by
jloome
I wasn't a sports journalist, I just wrote a soccer column on the side. I was a hard news reporter, including many years as an investigative journalist.
A source's accuracy in the past isn't the only issue when assessing the likelihood of a rumor to be true.
For this to be true, we have to assume that
A) manning is somehow subservient to the will of Giovinco's former agent, or his influence
B) That the former agent will exercise that influence regardless of the potential negative income potential (from his cut of any deal that isn't made as a result)
C) That manning is comfortable overriding or making a decision without Bob Bradley's input on whether he wants the player
D) That Manning is comfortable telling either Seba or front office staff this info, to have them leak it
E) That Bob Bradley is comfortable working with an acquisition agent who blackmails them over who they can sign (i.e. you won't get 'a' if you sign 'b', with Seba being b)
It's just not very likely. More likely is that they drew up terms of a deal for Seba but it went no further because Bradley thought he would be not worth the outlay/disruption.
When two parties see themselves as enemies, it's far more likely one side is being blamed for a deal falling apart based on hearsay.
Again, I'm not saying it's not true. I'm just saying the logic doesn't jibe with the perceived reality.