Only at City could a ex-owner be having a piss next to me in SS1 at that derby....
I liked Thaksin he was cool, remember the party he put on in town,without him we would not have the owners we have today.
I liked Thaksin he was cool, remember the party he put on in town,without him we would not have the owners we have today.
I'm sure Ranieri and the Leicester squad don't give a fuck too but they still went to Thailand and showed their respects to him. It's about building a fan base. I am currently staying in Thailand and never seen so many Leicester shirts here. Before and after they were crowned champions! Welcome to modern football.An embarrassment to our club.
I stopped going that season, once I saw ''Happy Birthday to the King of Thailand'' messages being shown on the scoreboard. Who in England gives a fuck about the King of Thailand?
This twat used MCFC to further his own ego and shame on those fans taken in by free noodles in Albert Square.
We were a quoted company so why couldn't ADUG have done the same as Thaksin did? It certainly made the deal easier that Thaksin held them all but pre-Thaksin 66% of the shares were held by just four shareholders and another 5% or more by another ten people. Franny Lee probably spoke for about 5% of shares beside his own stake and I met someone else who personally had 2%. It only needs 75% to agree to sell to make the offer unconditional. ADUG were also talking to Everton who were in a similar position to us pre-Thaksin, with a few people holding about 66% and a lot of smaller shareholders holding the rest.That's the point lots of people seem to miss. No Dr T buying up all the small shareholders, no Sheikh, out of business.
Simple.
They were delicious.An embarrassment to our club.
I stopped going that season, once I saw ''Happy Birthday to the King of Thailand'' messages being shown on the scoreboard. Who in England gives a fuck about the King of Thailand?
This twat used MCFC to further his own ego and shame on those fans taken in by free noodles in Albert Square.
This.There was something quite likeable about him but let's not get all misty eyed about him. Here's a few facts to counter some of the oft-posted myths:
1) He very nearly put us out of business by spending money we didn't have. In June 2008 we were seriously looking at administration and only a £25m loan, probably at ruinous interest rates (as the credit crunch had started) saved us.
2) This sob story about having to sell because his assets were frozen is a complete red herring. This happened BEFORE his takeover, not afterwards, but he had plenty of money salted away offshore beyond the reach of the Thai authorities. When he was asked to provide proof of his means as part of the sale process, he showed something like eight offshore accounts that EACH had something like $250m in. So he wasn't short of a few bob.
3) The sale of the club had little to do with him. Abu Dhabi were looking anyway and while any relationship they had may have played a small part, the business case for the deal had to be made and Garry Cook did that superbly. In fact Thaksin did his best to screw it up and it was only rescued by ADUG agreeing to let him keep 10% of the shares and an honorary title.which they relieved him of 9 months later. We owe Cook far more than Thaksin over the sale to Abu Dhabi.
4) When he bought the club, there were loans of over £20m (think is was around £22m) outstanding to John Wardle & Dave Makin. He "bought" those loans but at a significantly reduced sum, probably less than £15m. So W&M agreed to give up a few million of their own money to facilitate the sale. When he sold the club to ADUG he took the full value of those loans, that is, the full £22m. I'm not aware that he split this little windfall with Wardle & Makin.
There was something quite likeable about him but let's not get all misty eyed about him. Here's a few facts to counter some of the oft-posted myths:
1) He very nearly put us out of business by spending money we didn't have. In June 2008 we were seriously looking at administration and only a £25m loan, probably at ruinous interest rates (as the credit crunch had started) saved us.
2) This sob story about having to sell because his assets were frozen is a complete red herring. This happened BEFORE his takeover, not afterwards, but he had plenty of money salted away offshore beyond the reach of the Thai authorities. When he was asked to provide proof of his means as part of the sale process, he showed something like eight offshore accounts that EACH had something like $250m in. So he wasn't short of a few bob.
3) The sale of the club had little to do with him. Abu Dhabi were looking anyway and while any relationship they had may have played a small part, the business case for the deal had to be made and Garry Cook did that superbly. In fact Thaksin did his best to screw it up and it was only rescued by ADUG agreeing to let him keep 10% of the shares and an honorary title.which they relieved him of 9 months later. We owe Cook far more than Thaksin over the sale to Abu Dhabi.
4) When he bought the club, there were loans of over £20m (think is was around £22m) outstanding to John Wardle & Dave Makin. He "bought" those loans but at a significantly reduced sum, probably less than £15m. So W&M agreed to give up a few million of their own money to facilitate the sale. When he sold the club to ADUG he took the full value of those loans, that is, the full £22m. I'm not aware that he split this little windfall with Wardle & Makin.