Today's daily telegraph - New investment?
Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:51 amtaken from Monday's Telegraph:
Libyan investor eyes Liverpool
By Mihir Bose (Filed: 19/07/2004)
Al Saadi, the fourth son of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator, might invest in Liverpool. Sources close to Saadi say he is a keen admirer, in particular of Michael Owen. I understand that five years ago Liverpool turned down an indirect approach by Saadi but now things could be different.
Saadi is believed to have visited Anfield and his interest in investing in the Merseyside club has been increased following the failure of Liverpool to attract funding from Thailand.
This plan, masterminded by the Thai entertainment magnate Paiboon Damrongchaitham, would have seen the Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra make a £60 million investment for a 30 per cent stake in the club. But the deal collapsed because of opposition in Thailand to using public lottery money to make an investment in a private English football club. Since then, Damrongchaitham is believed to have sought out other Asian investors without success.
Libyan sources have expressed surprise at the newspaper stories at the weekend that Saadi's father, Col Gaddafi, was interested in investing in Crystal Palace. A spokesman for Gaddafi denied any knowledge of such a situation.
It would be very unlikely that Gaddafi would become involved in football. His green book, which has been the bible for Libya since the colonel seized power in the Sixties, makes it clear that watching organised sport is harmful for the people.
But his son Saadi is allowed to indulge his passion for the game. On the field he is part of the Italian team Perugia,although in the last year he has hardly played for them. Off the field Saadi has invested £14 million to buy 5.31 per cent of Juventus.
Saadi led Libya's unsuccessful bid to stage the 2010 World Cup. Last week his desire to host the 2008 African Nations Cup was also unsuccessful with Ghana defeating Libya.
Dunno what to make of this story to be honest. Once again i'm completely split down the middle. The fact that it comes from a "respected" paper I am contrived to take it seriously.
Libyan investor eyes Liverpool
By Mihir Bose (Filed: 19/07/2004)
Al Saadi, the fourth son of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator, might invest in Liverpool. Sources close to Saadi say he is a keen admirer, in particular of Michael Owen. I understand that five years ago Liverpool turned down an indirect approach by Saadi but now things could be different.
Saadi is believed to have visited Anfield and his interest in investing in the Merseyside club has been increased following the failure of Liverpool to attract funding from Thailand.
This plan, masterminded by the Thai entertainment magnate Paiboon Damrongchaitham, would have seen the Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra make a £60 million investment for a 30 per cent stake in the club. But the deal collapsed because of opposition in Thailand to using public lottery money to make an investment in a private English football club. Since then, Damrongchaitham is believed to have sought out other Asian investors without success.
Libyan sources have expressed surprise at the newspaper stories at the weekend that Saadi's father, Col Gaddafi, was interested in investing in Crystal Palace. A spokesman for Gaddafi denied any knowledge of such a situation.
It would be very unlikely that Gaddafi would become involved in football. His green book, which has been the bible for Libya since the colonel seized power in the Sixties, makes it clear that watching organised sport is harmful for the people.
But his son Saadi is allowed to indulge his passion for the game. On the field he is part of the Italian team Perugia,although in the last year he has hardly played for them. Off the field Saadi has invested £14 million to buy 5.31 per cent of Juventus.
Saadi led Libya's unsuccessful bid to stage the 2010 World Cup. Last week his desire to host the 2008 African Nations Cup was also unsuccessful with Ghana defeating Libya.
Dunno what to make of this story to be honest. Once again i'm completely split down the middle. The fact that it comes from a "respected" paper I am contrived to take it seriously.