The comments are obvious, and the notion was ridiculous in the first place. In all likelihood, there is crown backing for Jassim’s bid, but the 2+2 of the British media to conclude that Khalaifi being asked to have a word is somehow ‘evidence of state involvement’ is ridiculous. It’s simplistic analogy based on little more than the fact that they are compatriots. I mean, it doesn’t even make sense in the context of their own assertions. How can the fact that Al-Khalaifi has been asked to persuade the named bidder to increase to an acceptable amount (which he has not done) evidence anything other than the fact that Jassim is in control of this bid?
If Ratcliffe speaks to an MP, which he may well do, does that become evidence of the British State being behind the bid?