Saudi to buy 50%??

[Slinky Skills]

Saudi Arabian sports investment company F6 have confirmed they have reached an agreement with Liverpool to establish a number of football academies in the region, while chairman Prince Faisal bin Fahad bin Abdulla Al Saud also reiterated his desire to buy a 50% stake in the Premier League club.

The deal signed with Reds co-owner George Gillett will seek to set-up two exclusive academies in Saudi Arabia and two in North Africa while also extending the interests of the American's NASCAR franchise Richard Petty Motorsports.

"The memorandum of understanding with George Gillett group will establish an exclusive partnership between F6 group, Liverpool FC and Richard Petty Motorsports team," a statement released by the company read.

"His Highness Prince Faisal stated that the partnership with George Gillett's group will be a good addition to F6. This partnership will provide a lot of investments in football, racing and sports media in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East."

Prince Faisal confirmed the deals were done following Liverpool's 6-1 defeat of Hull City at Anfield on Saturday, a game he attended as a guest of the club.

"We have signed several contracts with Liverpool after visiting the club and attending the match with Hull City in the Premier League," he told Al Riyadh daily newspaper.

"The contracts are basically sports investments, which also include establishing football academies that will definitely help the future of Saudi sports in the future.

"We will make two academies in Saudi Arabia and two in North Africa."

Prince Faisal also claimed he is closing in on a 50% share of Liverpool for a price of between 200 and 350 million pounds.

"At the moment we are looking forward to acquiring 50 per cent of the club's stake," said the Prince, who is also an honorary member of Saudi football giants Al Hilal.

"The deal will be concluded soon and its value will be between 200 and 350 million pounds.

"If we finalise the deal, it will be something marvellous because Liverpool is one of the best and most famous clubs in England and the whole world."

If the Saudi prince does indeed manage to acquire half the club, it will undoubtedly bolster manager Rafael Benitez's spending power during the January transfer window.

Where is it???

[Migselv]

Ooh I dunno, maybe someone without the name NEW YORK in the title of their newspaper?
Let me think, err, a publication not renowned for its governmental apologist stance?
One that isn't described as the Pentagon's mouthpiece?

Could you please elaborate on these comments. To me they sound wrong on so many levels, so curious how you could get that opinion?


My point isn't whether the Saudi's are clean as a whistle (I don't need Google, ta) its that whoever buys us has to have a certain amount of money to do so, no?

Do enough digging about anyone that can afford half a billion quid and I'm sure there are plenty of skeletons to be found

So I take it, that you have never made any comments as to the origins of Abramovich's wealth? Not insinuating btw, just asking.
I don't know enough of this prince to have formed any valid opinion on him yet. After all the saudi royal family contains thousands of people. But I do hope, that whatever money he would bring to LFC wouldn't be associated with the same kind of exploitation as in the case of Abramovich

This is about football, and a football team.

So had it been Josef Stalin who brought money to the club, you would feel the same?

Would I rather Liverpool Football Club goes to rack and ruin (no, I'm not suggesting it would under H&G) or would I rather it was owned and maintained by someone with enough financial muscle to allow us to compete at the very highest level?

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to choose, naturally. But we do, so I'm just wondering at what point do we collectively decide that our morals dictate who should own our club.....

[saveferris]

If there is anything fundamentally dodgy about the owners, wouldn't they fail the fit and proper person's test relating to football club ownership?

If Briatore is being investigated because he got caught cheating in a different sport then this will be bought up, wouldnt it?

[Bender]

]If there is anything fundamentally dodgy[/B] about the owners, wouldn't they fail the fit and proper person's test relating to football club ownership?

If Briatore is being investigated because he got caught cheating in a different sport then this will be bought up, wouldnt it?

This also applied/applies to the previous liverpool board of Moores and co

[Neil Young]

If there is anything fundamentally dodgy about the owners, wouldn't they fail the fit and proper person's test relating to football club ownership?

If Briatore is being investigated because he got caught cheating in a different sport then this will be bought up, wouldnt it?

I don't think the so-called 'fit and proper persons test' takes account of being part of a undemocratic regime where women, gay people and many others are viciously oppressed.

It should take it into account though, wouldn't you agree?

[Gazmo1]

5 mintues of my life that I won't get back and visual rape that my eyes will have to come to terms with. Linking the Saudi's to terrorism is shakey ground in the extreme. As has been pointed out the USA funded terrorism against the former USSR, Libya funded the IRA and has nobody yet worked out why, despite having a shed load of westerm businesses and people, the UAE doesn't get hit??

Unfortunately this is the way of the world and we are here arguing over something that is hypertheotical in the extreme! There is little difference between a man who arms himself with a gun in the name of the lord and a multi-national (read oil companies/Microsoft/Macdonalds etc.) in the way that business is done. I bet you are reading this from a MS based OS??

[Darkon]

I don't think the so-called 'fit and proper persons test' takes account of being part of a undemocratic regime where women, gay people and many others are viciously oppressed.

It should take it into account though, wouldn't you agree?

It can't be a part of it when Thaksin could own city, and other middle eastern regimes can be involved with PL clubs.

But it would be good if it where. I also remember a lot of criticism of City when Thaksin bought in, and how many where happy we weren't involved after he got in trouble. But I guess that it changes when they are rich enough...

[Neil Young]

5 mintues of my life that I won't get back and visual rape that my eyes will have to come to terms with. Linking the Saudi's to terrorism is shakey ground in the extreme. As has been pointed out the USA funded terrorism against the former USSR, Libya funded the IRA and has nobody yet worked out why, despite having a shed load of westerm businesses and people, the UAE doesn't get hit??

Unfortunately this is the way of the world and we are here arguing over something that is hypertheotical in the extreme! There is little difference between a man who arms himself with a gun in the name of the lord and a multi-national (read oil companies/Microsoft/Macdonalds etc.) in the way that business is done. I bet you are reading this from a MS based OS??

I don't understand what point you're making.

[Neil Young]

It can't be a part of it when Thaksin could own city, and other middle eastern regimes can be involved with PL clubs.

But it would be good if it where. I also remember a lot of criticism of City when Thaksin bought in, and how many where happy we weren't involved after he got in trouble. But I guess that it changes when they are rich enough...

[Aza]

A couple of interesting quotes being attributed to the Prince on the BBC site.

[wavydavy]

A couple of interesting quotes being attributed to the Prince on the BBC site.

That's the puzzling thing. I suspect that this is all gonna come to nothing again yet there are direct quotes coming out of the Saudi organisation supposedly involved. Why open your trap like that? Another thing: Didn't Gillett say a few weeks ago that they would be sticking around "unless someone with a pocketful of money shows up"? Is that "someone" the Prince and was that a clue that this was in the pipeline then?

[JHP]

To those with (I am sure genuine) concerns about Saudi ownership, do you stop to think where the fuel comes from when you fill your car. If it's not from Saudi it's probably some other similar state it comes from? Also does it mean that all individuals from a country with questionable human rights activities etc should be tarred with the same brush?

I hope it goes through and becomes a full take over. Not that I want a sugar daddy but that it should bring financial stability. But I think there's every chance it will not amount to anything mostly as I expect our current owners to fail to agree terms. Just wonder if that happens will there be even more vitriol towards them?

[wavydavy]

To those with (I am sure genuine) concerns about Saudi ownership, do you stop to think where the fuel comes from when you fill your car. If it's not from Saudi it's probably some other similar state it comes from? Also does it mean that all individuals from a country with questionable human rights activities etc should be tarred with the same brush?
I hope it goes through and becomes a full take over. Not that I want a sugar daddy but that it should bring financial stability. But I think there's every chance it will not amount to anything mostly as I expect our current owners to fail to agree terms. Just wonder if that happens will there be even more vitriol towards them?

Steady on sunshine! We don't allow that in this country.

[JHP]

Steady on sunshine! We don't allow that in this country.

No racist comment intended. My understanding of the origins is:

The origin is the verb to tar, meaning to defile or dirty, known from the early years of the seventeenth century. The idiom appears in print first in 1818, in one of Sir Walter Scott’s novels, Rob Roy: “They are a’ tarr’d wi’ the same stick — rank Jacobites and Papists.” Our modern form appears in William Cobbett’s Rural Rides in 1823: “‘You are all tarred with the same brush’, said the sensible people of Maidstone.”

The idea behind it is that two individuals who have been liberally daubed or painted with the same tar brush look much the same and so appear to have the same characteristics. The links of the colour black with matters that were detestable, dishonourable or evil also added to the negative sense.

[BubbaZanetti]

Can't we have another thread for the 'are Saudis all evil terror gibbons' malarkey and have one purely for the takeover talk?