Moores has a massive dig at City and its fans.

[Lancet Fluke]

To be honest, to pick you up on your very first point, guilty doesn't necessarily have to be a legal term at all. It can just mean that you are responsible for something. I never suggested that he should have been thrown in jail or hanged without a trial but just that I was far from comfortable with the club being owned by someone who oversaw such a policy. Is it ok with you that I am uncomfortable with something or does that just make you go fucking crazy with indignation? It can be very difficult to make people like Thaksin stand trial. It was drug addicts and drug dealers who were murdered, it was well before he was over thrown and Thaksin's goverment was happy to publicise the war on drugs policy while these murders were taking place.

And it was none of that that was in Moores' mind when they apparently opted against his non-offer.

Exactly and I have already said that.

The action was against drug dealers not drug addicts.

There's no point disagreeing with him... he's already made up his mind about what he believes to be the facts.

They weren't given fair trials before being killed, many of them just disappeared in the night. How do you know they were drug dealers if they weren't given fair trials? I have read that many were assumed to be drug dealers if they were on drugs or in possession of drugs. Yes I only read it so, as i have said, I am not advocating any punishment for anyone without a court trial, but certainly I think I am within my rights to have felt uncomfortable with him owning the club. I'm not sure why that makes you so annoyed with me to be honest. Funny how your argument about legal trial only applies to Thaksin and not the victims of his regime. I'm going home now, bye.

 

[Soulboy]

And it was none of that that was in Moores' mind when they apparently opted against his non-offer.

Exactly and I have already said that.

There's no point disagreeing with him... he's already made up his mind about what he believes to be the facts.

They weren't given fair trials before being killed, many of them just disappeared in the night. How do you know they were drug dealers if they weren't given fair trials? I have read that many were assumed to be drug dealers if they were on drugs or in possession of drugs. Yes I only read it so, as i have said, I am not advocating any punishment for anyone without a court trial, but certainly I think I am within my rights to have felt uncomfortable with him owning the club. I'm not sure why that makes you so annoyed with me to be honest. Funny how your argument about legal trial only applies to Thaksin and not the victims of his regime. I'm going home now, bye.

My final comment on this... seriously!

It was terrible that people were executed without being given a fair trial, whether that be drug addicts or drug dealers... however, to date, we have had no definitive evidence that Thaksin was involved.

The army/local police carried out the executions based on them being told to "clear up the problem"... maybe the fact that they carried it out in such a fashion caused some discomfort in the Prime Minister's office... and the army overthrew him as a result?

Just a conspiracy theory... no evidence to back it up... but has as much credence as your stuff!

We'll call it a score draw. I feel generous.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

I don't know if I have ever said this before, but Thaksin was a complete bellend.

Moores is half right. It is a disgrace that he was ever associated with this club. And the fans who defended/defend him and couldn't give a shit about him dragging this club's name into human rights issues, political manouvering, corruption and various other dodgy matters are a bit of a disgrace too.

They don't seem to care that the name of the club was dragged through the mud by him and I can't understand that. First the excuse was that he might have some cash, then it was 'Oh well, he got lucky and sold it to some decent people'. None of which detracts from the fact that he intentionally tarnished the good name of this club, all because he wanted to use it as a political tool in his own grubby affairs.

A total bellend. Say what you like about Swales, but at least he was a blue and wanted what was best for the club - even if he hadn't a clue about how to go about it properly. Thaksin's priorities were himself and his grubby business, first, second, third and last. City were nothing but a tool to fuck about with to aid him with that and if they were fucked up because of it (and it was very close) he couldn't give a shit (other than the fact he might lose some wedge).

 

[samharris]

Its got fuck all to do with him...This is the guy who sold liverpool and now he's saying they should step down...

mind your own business...twat..

 

[blueinsa]

I don't know if I have ever said this before, but Thaksin was a complete bellend.

Moores is half right. It is a disgrace that he was ever associated with this club. And the fans who defended/defend him and couldn't give a shit about him dragging this club's name into human rights issues, political manouvering, corruption and various other dodgy matters are a bit of a disgrace too.

They don't seem to care that the name of the club was dragged through the mud by him and I can't understand that. First the excuse was that he might have some cash, then it was 'Oh well, he got lucky and sold it to some decent people'. None of which detracts from the fact that he intentionally tarnished the good name of this club, all because he wanted to use it as a political tool in his own grubby affairs.

A total bellend. Say what you like about Swales, but at least he was a blue and wanted what was best for the club - even if he hadn't a clue about how to go about it properly. Thaksin's priorities were himself and his grubby business, first, second, third and last. City were nothing but a tool to fuck about with to aid him with that and if they were fucked up because of it (and it was very close) he couldn't give a shit (other than the fact he might lose some wedge).

JMA, i like your posts mate and im not a defender of Thaksin in any way shape or form, but tell me mate, in what way was our name tarnished? I saw no real signs of our good name being tarnished at the time, sure we had some bad press but we get that anyway, instead of an evil dictator in charge and us ruining the world and football, we now have wealth undeserving and are using that to destroy the world and football! Like i said im not defending him but to me he didnt do much that previous owners havnt done in that he got us in to shit loads of debt and nearly sent us bust.

 

[bluestevei]

There is a letter in the Times from the ex-chairman of Liverpool, David Moores.

It makes for very interesting reading and there is something we should all take note of -

To give just one example, we responded to overtures from Thailand - the figures discussed were so enormous we were obliged to take a closer look. We had just persuaded Rafa to join the club as manager and were eager to back him in the transfer market. No matter how dizzying their wealth though, we would never simply rush into a relationship with an unsuitable partner, and so it transpired with Thailand. After looking closely at the deal we withdraw from the proposition, and did so for all the honourable reasons you’d expect from our club. So it was ironic that Manchester City was subsequently sold to the same entity, without so much as a murmur of disapproval from their fan base. When it suits them, football fans can turn a blind eye to the things they’d rather not have to acknowledge. We did acknowledge it though - we confronted the reality that the Thai offer was unethical, made our decision to withdraw and carried on the search.

So now apparently Liverpool are being sold as the most honorable club, the club that does things right. Liverpool is the club of the people etc etc.

If anyone would li[b]As we know there is truth in what he says about Frank but how can it be honorable to sell to the current muppet owners?[/b]ke the full transcript let me know and I will copy on here.

WHAT HE MEANT WAS THE CURRENT OWNERS GIVE HIM ANOTHER 8 MILLON TO SELL TO THEM

 

[madblue]

PMSL is this the same fckr who sold liverpool to the yanks and they are doing very well and since frank sold us we have gone down hill(tongue in cheek)well id rather have our owners who put their money where his mouth is and not one who has put the future of liverpool at risk with the huge debts

 

[robbieh]

Anyone would think reading this post that somehow Britain is an ethical country.

While not condoning the killing of people without trial we as a nation have been responsible for the deaths of 100,000s of people both due to sanctions imposed on Iraq before the 2nd Iraq war and in the subsequent Bush/Blair illegal invasion and occupation. Throw in Afghanistan to the mix and I think Thaksin's alleged crimes seem somewhat small fry.

 

[Blue Hefner]

Just been listening to Talk Sport. They were saying that Liverpool should go into administration to they can get rid of the owners.
Now i'm no expert but surely this is only happens when a club can't pay its bill. As far i know there is no sign of this happening but if it came to it they would just sell some players and continue to milk the club for a couple more years.

Have i read the situation wrong is there a REAL chance of Liverpool going into administration?

 

[ecviper]

It is a little shady in the politics of Thailand when Thaksin was ousted by his own military. Maybe what some have said about the army and police taking action of their own kind could have caused problems between them and Thaksin's office.

We will never know until it is revealed and then it will still have parts that are not clear as daylight.<br /><br />-- Wed May 26, 2010 5:11 pm --<br /><br />

Just been listening to Talk Sport. They were saying that Liverpool should go into administration to they can get rid of the owners.
Now i'm no expert but surely this is only happens when a club can't pay its bill. As far i know there is no sign of this happening but if it came to it they would just sell some players and continue to milk the club for a couple more years.

Have i read the situation wrong is there a REAL chance of Liverpool going into administration?

Seems like a long shot to me. I really doubt Hicks and Gillet would allow such a thing to happen and will definitely sell players to fund the repayments. They still are the owners so won't allow their huge investment to go belly up so the club can kick them out.

Anyway, them on talk sport are no financial advisers so I wouldn't believe them so easily. Only believe it when we see it in the news.