Liverpool FC Forum

[kazza]

PSG owners QSI and the truth about Liverpool 'takeover' after Mohamed Salah 'meeting'
Reports had emerged that Paris Saint-Germain's owners Qatar Sports Investments had Liverpool in their sights

ByDave Powell
17:31, 16 JAN 2023UPDATED15:32, 17 JAN 2023

Paris Saint-Germain owners Qatar Sports Investments won't be able to make a full takeover play for Liverpool despite QSI's chief alleged 'meeting' with Mohamed Salah at a London restaurant.

Qatar Sports Investments (QSI), a subsidiary of Qatar Investment Authority, the sovereign wealth fund of the Middle Eastern nation, are on the lookout to expand their portfolio in 2023. They have been linked with both Liverpool and Manchester United after it emerged - as first reported by CBS Sports - that QSI chairman, and president and CEO of PSG, Nasser Al Khelaifi, had met with Tottenham Hotspur chairman Daniel Levy in London earlier this month.

The meeting, which Spurs have denied took place but that various media outlets have confirmed, was to discuss, according to football.london, the new joint venture between UEFA and the European Clubs Association, of which Al Khelaifi is chairman, which covers media rights sales processes for UEFA club competitions after 2024 and is set to boost revenue streams for teams in the Champions League, Europa League and Conference League. Potential investment through the purchase of a minority stake was reportedly part of the meeting agenda.

Egyptian journalist Ismael Mahmoud shared a picture on Monday that showed a group of five men meeting in a restaurant, with two of the party alleged to be Al Khelaifi and Liverpool striker Salah.


Mahmoud went on to state that Salah was someone who QSI wanted to be core to a Liverpool project, claiming that the PSG owners would divest from their controlling stake in the French side in 2024 and focus on Liverpool.

A Bloomberg report last week suggested that both Liverpool and United were in the sights of QSI when it came to investment, with even the potential for a full takeover mooted in the report.

However, The Times and CBS Sports both reported that there had been no talks held with either clubs, with ECHO sources in the US corroborating that information. While QSI could take a minority stake that held no decisive influence in a team like Liverpool, there would be no chance of a QSI takeover of a major Premier League club unless they dumped their controlling interest in PSG, something that was reported not to be on the agenda for QSI.

QSI could, however, purchase a minority stake in Liverpool that would provide FSG with the kind of capital that they were seeking and give QSI a road to a takeover in time by accreting that stake into a full shareholding at a time when they divest any control that they held at PSG. It is at this stage, a purely hypothetical situation as such a play would depend on numerous factors.

QSI are preparing themselves for an ambitious next 12 months and investment into the Premier League forms part of that thinking. But any stake that they held could not be a controlling one, nor could they have any meaningful representation at board level given the very obvious conflict of interest that would arise from having influence over two major European teams that could meet with regularity in the Champions League.

QSI have invested huge sums in their PSG project and are themselves looking to sell around 15 per cent of their shareholding, at a club valuation of €4bn, to provide them with fresh capital to invest in the major project of building their own stadium in the French capital. Since 1973 PSG have been tenants at the Parc des Princes, the stadium owned by the Council of Paris.

The potential for conflict of interest isn't a new phenomenon, but it is one that would provide a roadblock to QSI - from who have a controlling stake in Portuguese side Braga - from acquiring a controlling stake in a major Premier League team.

Two clubs whose ownership has 'common control' are forbidden to compete against one another according to UEFA regulations. In 2018, Red Bull-owned RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg were pitted against each other in the Champions League, something that saw major changes behind the scenes having to take place in order to satisfy UEFA that clear separation between the two teams existed and that "no individual or legal entity had anymore a decisive influence."

Liverpool themselves are part-owned by the controlling owners of a European giant, AC Milan, with RedBird Capital Partners owning an 11 per cent stake of Fenway Sports Group.

The nature of the shareholding - which is held indirectly in the Reds - and due to the fact that no board position is held at the football club by anyone from RedBird, means that there has never been a cause for concern when it comes to any potential conflict of interest from UEFA's point of view.

FSG are continuing to search for new partners, and remain open to discussing the possibility of a full sale should offers in excess of $4bn (£3.3bn) be forthcoming. It is the former - a minority partner who could provide strategic capital and expertise to held grow the revenues, as well as potentially accreting their investment over time to eventually take a controlling share - that is understood to be of the most appeal to FSG principal John W. Henry.

Well-placed ECHO sources in North America have said that while there has been some interest, there have been no offers and "nothing real" has yet emerged from the search in terms of proposals that has led to high-level talks with FSG top brass. The search is being conducted by US investment banks Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs and led by FSG president Mike Gordon, who has recently been handing over his day-to-day responsibilities at Liverpool to CEO Billy Hogan in order to focus on the investment search.

Reported interest from Qatar has been growing in recent weeks, with a former name linked with a Liverpool takeover, Ooredoo, mentioned as a potential bidder for a controlling stake. That wouldn't be without its problems given that both QSI and Ooredoo both have strong ties to the Qatari state, and that would provide UEFA with cause for concern over the potential for decisive influence to be had over two major clubs.

Liverpool is an attractive proposition to the Middle East, though, with the city's recent approval as a free port, which aids international trade through exemptions from the usual tax and customs rules so as to encourage import, export and other commercial activity, meaning that it would present opportunities to diversify revenue streams for some MENA nations, with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE among those to have aggressively pursued improvements to their port strategy in recent times.

[ycsatbjywtbiastkamb]

Thanks for posting that mate, interesting read.

[Reg]

FYI a pal of mine who normally has good information has told me there are no Qatari discussions going on, in fact there aren't any even vaguely serious discussions with anyone. '
The yanks put up a kite and wanted to see how it would fly... 

[Boocity]

I reckon would be buyers/investors are looking at where we will finish this season, no champs league will affect the price.

[Reg]

Buyer's aren't that fickle. If they're fair weather investors baaed on one season's results then they shouldn't get involved.

[damjan193]

Yeah, but investors/buyers aren't stupid either. Why buy now when they can wait until the end of the season and if we finish outside top 4 then our stocks will likely drop and they can get more for less.

[Reg]

Because they'll be harming their own investment.

[Boocity]

I don't know Reg, if they are in for the long haul, one season out of the champs league would be a small price to pay for a lower sale price.

[Reg]

Yep, maybe you're right. But it might affect the decision making of the players we want to bring in.

[Reg]

I consider myself lucky to have been at the CL Final in Madrid 4 years ago when this team was at it's prime.

But you do realise this was FOUR years ago?

The team was:

GK 13 Alisson
RB 66 Trent Alexander-Arnold
CB 32 Joël Matip
CB 4 Virgil van Dijk
LB 26 Andrew Robertson
CM 14 Jordan Henderson (c)
CM 3 Fabinho
CM 5 Georginio Wijnaldum +
RF 11 Mohamed Salah
CF 9 Roberto Firmino
LF 10 Sadio Mané +
Substitutes:
DF 12 Joe Gomez Came on, 90'
MF 7 James Milner            Came on, 62'
MF 21 Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain   Unused
FW 27 Divock Origi Came on, 58'

The same team we have today bar Gini, Mane (who we shouldn't have sold) and Divock.

FOUR years ago lads and the manager expects the same level of performance?!

[UvS xR4GEx]

Yep, and you look at Arsenal and United and they have completely different teams and we wonder why we're 15-20 points off of the pace.

The midfield was where we won the big games.. you put Hendo/Gini/Fab against KDB/Fernandinho/Gundagon and I was confident we could overwhelm them through hardwork and press.

Now the legs and the press have gone from our midfield the quality of that City midfield will shine though and we can't stop their technical, quick passing game anymore.

[woof woof !]

Reg , you say

Mane (who we shouldn't have sold)

I have to remind you and all others who bang on about us selling Mane . Mane wanted to leave ! and when a player, any player,  even after protracted negation still say's he determined to go , what is a club supposed to do ?
I'm fed up with the club being held responsible for Mane leaving us, it was his decision and there wasn't a lot we could do about it .

And for those idiots/pundits who constantly reference our poor form with us no longer having Mane, wake the f*ck up, our problems go far deeper than that   

[Reg]

Fair enough Woof, but in the ideal world I would have sold both Mo and Bobby than lose Mane.

[woof woof !]

Fair enough Woof, but in the ideal world I would have sold both Mo and Bobby than lose Mane.

Hate to say this Reg    but yeah, we would've been slaughtered for selling Mo but truth be told his value and performances have dropped by at least 50% over the last two seasons.

We could have probably got a world record fee for him at one point, who would have thought he'd somehow suddenly go from "Egyptian King" to one who's lost his crown and is looking quite average.

Hindsight is a bitch.

As for Bobby Firmino, don't know the financials , but if affordable I still think he's a worthy member of the squad.

[red till i die!!]

Mane was an important cog in the machine and also had that warrior attitude where he just kept going and going.  But I do think he wanted out, The club knew it but persuaded him to hold out for one more year. That's why we went for Diaz in January because we knew Sadio was off in the sumer. I also believe that he would have left us 2 or 3 years ago for Madrid only for Zidane got the boot.

Now!! I ain't got any problem with players who want to leave and in Manes case he has won the lot and maybe wanted a new challenge in a different country. We seem to have this novel idea that every player can stay here for their career but they can't. Some players peaked with us and are now on the rapid decline so need to be moved on real quick because if they remain it will hamper the quality of replacement we sign. The ones that it isn't working out for need to have the plug pulled quicker and not left here punishing the team because a silly valuation won't be met.

I wouldn't sell Salah and ye might think I'm mad but I'd have Jota out the door quicker.  Way to many injuries for my liking whereas Mo is always available. I know his form has torpedoed but he is still a good player just not able to carry us any more. We made a massive mistake with letting Gini go considering what he brought to that side and letting Mo leave this summer will have a similar impact imo. We can and need to prioritise other departures before even considering Mo.

From what I read in the media we are still trying to tie down extensions with the likes of Keita, Ox, Bobby and Milner!! Two of them should have been out the door 2 years ago and the other 2 transitioned out before this season or at least reduced to bit part. Wanting the four of them to stay is utter madness.