English clubs are playstations for rich and the ridiculous

“We will buy it in the name of Thailand. We want Thai people to be part of the purchase,” Jakrapob told reporters, adding that “most of the money will come from public funds.”

Thaksin is a former telecommunications tycoon who also showed an interest in buying Fulham earlier his year. He says the premier league’s huge popularity in Asia will enable a company formed with other private investors to profit from use of “the Liverpool brand”.

While the commercial opportunities are clear — many leading clubs are frantically forging links in China, Japan and South-East Asia — Thaksin’s investment is likely to have as much to do with status by association.

With an estimated $1 billion to his name, what better way to spend some of it than on buying a stake in one of the world’s most famous football clubs?

Roman Abramovich certainly thought it was a good idea, the Russian billionaire investing hundreds of millions of pounds at Chelsea in his out-of-the-blue takeover last year.

“I don’t want to throw my money away but it’s really about having fun and that means trophies,” Abramovich said at the time.

His investment, a tiny fraction of his estimated $5 billion fortune, has failed to bring home any silverware in the first season but it is only a matter of time, and the casually-dressed Russian certainly seems to enjoy his trips to Stamford Bridge.

Egyptian businessman and Harrods owner Mohammed Al Fayed, usually at odds with the British establishment, managed at least to buy the respect of Fulham fans after his 100-million-pound ($177-million) investment helped to turn the club from third-division strugglers to a top-10 premier league team. Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al Khalifa, a member of Bahrain’s royal family, briefly appeared as the saviour of debt-riddled Leeds United last year until his interest proved no more than a mirage.

Talk of a Venezuelan billionaire taking over Aston Villa turned out to be based on similarly sandy foundations while a bid for Manchester United by Russian senator and businessman Ralif Safin failed to materialise.

United, the soccer “brand” that surpasses all others in the world and is particularly strong in Asia, remains the ultimate cherry and the club are regularly involved in takeover speculation.

United, who earn around 700,000 pounds from every home match, are the world’s richest sports club and enjoyed revenues of around 175 million pounds last season.

It is hard to believe that when businessman Michael Knighton famously juggled the ball on the Old Trafford pitch at the time of his planned takeover in 1989 he had agreed to buy the club for just 20 million pounds. In those days, when stock market floatations and multi-million-pound satellite television rights deals were distant dreams, even the biggest clubs were generally owned by local dignitaries and businessmen.

Their dealings remained low-key and their involvement tended to be a labour of love. Few clubs made money and the role of the director was generally seen as putting his hand in his pocket to Finance occasional ground developments and the odd transfer.

Liverpool, owned for more than 50 years by the Moores family who made their fortune from the locally-based Littlewoods pools and shopping empire, have managed to move with the times but shareholder disgruntlement is growing.

The club have won a record 18 league championship titles but supporter frustration at their current inability to compete with Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea led chairman David Moores to say in January he would consider selling some of his 51 percent stake.

Fans want trophies and are much less concerned these days about who pulls the strings behind the scenes, but even the most broad-minded of the Anfield faithful must be wondering if their salvation really lies in Bangkok. —Reuters