Main Index

Index to British press articles on the Fayeds' purchase of Harrods

Here, Ivan Fallon, whose Sunday Times article of 10 March 1985, 'Selling the national jewels,' was arguably the most pro-Fayed profile of all, disparages Tiny Rowland's and The Observer's allegations that the Fayed brothers had bought House of Fraser using the Sultan of Brunei's cash.  Fallon states that The Sunday Times and other newspapers had investigated these allegations and found no link to the Sultan, and ends his piece by implying that The Observer's journalists were acting at the behest of their proprietor, Tiny Rowland.

The Sunday Times
Sunday, 11 August 1985

by Ivan Fallon
THE EGYPTIAN owners of Harrods and the House of Fraser, the Al-Fayed brothers, have hit back at Tiny Rowland, chief executive of Lonrho, over what they feel is a campaign being mounted against them in the financial pages of The Observer.  They have now written to the independent directors of The Observer, which is owned by Lonrho, to complain about a steady stream of allegations that the £570m they used to buy Fraser was not their own money but that of the Sultan of Brunei.  They also complain that the source of these stories was Tiny Rowland himself.
    Rowland has strongly protested at the government's failure to refer the Al-Fayeds' bid for House of Fraser to the Monopolies Commission after it had delayed Rowland's own bid for years.  He has also demanded that Norman Tebbit, the trade and industry Secretary, should investigate the source of the money used by the Al-Fayeds to buy the whole of the House of Fraser.  Rowland presented Tebbit with a file of material in support of his allegations, which the Al-Fayeds and his bankers have continually denied.
    Most Fleet Street newspapers, including the Sunday Times, have investigated these allegations without finding any link between the vast wealth of the Sultan and the Harrods takeover.
    The Financial Times ran a story in May headlined "The Mystery of the Al-Fayeds" which said that "no one can be certain of the true beneficial ownership of House of Fraser."  It later ran an article quoting John MacArthur, a director of City bankers Kleinwort Benson, which acts for the Al-Fayeds, as saying: "The Al-Fayeds acquired House of Fraser with their own cash resources."  The Financial Times added that it regretted the suggestion that nobody seemed to believe that the Al-Fayeds had used their own resources.  It apologised "for any embarrassment his suggestion may have caused."
    Last week the Sunday Telegraph carried a statement from the Sultan of Brunei denying Rowland's allegation that his personal wealth had been used to help the Al-Fayeds in the Harrods takeover.  The statement insisted that "neither his majesty nor members of his family have or have had, any financial interest in the House of Fraser plc or any of the Al-Fayeds' business."
    On the same day The Observer carried a story under the headline "The Sultan's Major Hanbury" which repeated Rowland's earlier allegations, claiming a link through a Sultan aide, Major Christopher Hanbury.  The Al-Fayeds strongly deny these allegations. 
    Rowland has made no secret of his bitterness at losing House of Fraser and its greatest asset, Harrods, to the Al-Fayeds.  Ironically it was his own sale of a 29.9% stake in the company that opened the way for the Egyptian brothers.  But whereas Rowland had been rejected fiercely by the Fraser board, and had also been blocked by the Monopolies Commission, the Fraser board instantly supported the Al-Fayed bid.  Norman Tebbit let the bid go through without a referral.
    The object of the Rowland campaign is to force Tebbit to order an official inquiry into the question of "who owns Harrods" and possibly force the Al-Fayeds to sell it.  Rowland has still not abandoned hope that one day he will own it.
    The Al-Fayed letter of complaint, sent last week to The Observer's independent directors, was revealed in yesterday's Times.  It asks the directors -- Lord Windlesham, Sir Derek Mitchell, Sir Geoffrey Cox and Dame Alice Murray -- to investigate all the circumstances behind The Observer's articles. 
    The letter points out that under article 29(c) of The Observer's articles of association the paper's journalists are to be given instructions only by the editor, or those to whom he has delegated authority.  It also says that the conditions set down by the Monopolies Commission when it allowed Rowland's bid for The Observer to go through "emphasised the importance of the independent directors in assuring to readers of The Observer continued confidence in The Observer".
    Yesterday Anthony Howard, acting editor of The Observer in the absence of Donald Trelford, said that the paper would issue a writ for libel on Tuesday in response to the Al-Fayeds' letter.

Previous article

Next article