Thaksin news

[Anonymous]

Thanks Gary. You'll know far more than me about what really went on during Dr T's time at the club. I'm glad you don't view it as negatively as maybe some of the people who are a little less informed than you.

 

[Dubai Blue]

His motives may have been questionable, I couldn't say, but don't forget he had tried to buy Liverpool before he bought City (and he pulled out of that purchase despite what may be widely perceived today) while he was still Thailand's PM, so were his motives tied in with his political ambitions or not?

The purchase of Liverpool was going to be by Thailand the country, not Thaksin the individual and he planned to use State Lottery money to fund it. This caused uproar in Bangkok, forcing him to eventually shelve the idea.

 

[Matty]

If ever there was a statement that demonstrates how ignorant some people on these forums are then it's this.

Ok smart arse, explain to me how it's anything but backward that you can have legal elections where the public vote comprehensively for who they want to win, and then the amy can simply say "we don't want you to govern, so we're going to overthrow you". You can't.

Sometimes people try and be politically correct and bend over backwards so much to not seem racist that they end up looking like a dickhead. Congratulations, you've just acheived this. But, I suppose, as you live in an amongst this political/millitary ridiculousness you're immune to it's idiocy now.

Sure I can do that, but first you tell me what you know about the constitutional crisis Thailand was in in 2006, how it arose and what the possible solutions were. Then maybe we can have a debate.

It's entirely unacceptable for the millitary to overthrow any elected government. The public vote, they pick who runs the country, the army should have nothing to do with it. The "constitutional crisis" as you call it is an irrelevance or, more accurately, an excuse used by those who overthrew the government, and those who the army's actions benefited. The government was overthrown as the army feared their "power" was being marginalised, and because the affluent weren't benefitting in the way they wanted. Yes, the government weren't squeaky clean, and there were claims of wrong doings against Shinawatra, but ultimately the things he was accused of are the kinds of things most governments in less developed countries are accused of.

It seems that, in the main, when you speak to Thai people they are quite happy about Shinawatra, his powerbase is the lowly paid, the rural Thais, basically those without too much power or money. It's telling that a large number of expats seem to have the most issues with him, perhaps because his policies and his concentration on the "little people" doesn't actively help them.

 

[levets]

You can debate the rights and wrongs of Thaksin the politician til the cows come home (blatant corruption and self interest versus populist social policies and overwhelming rural support), but the debate about Thaksin the football club owner should be a very short-lived one; he was an unmitigated disaster.

Not so certain about that. The Club may well have gone into administration with Thaksin in control, but that could possibly have occurred any way.

Regardless of the politics, Manchester City survived because of Thaksin and now prospers because he sold the Club on.

The most salient point in the whole debate.....

 

[Gary James]

His motives may have been questionable, I couldn't say, but don't forget he had tried to buy Liverpool before he bought City (and he pulled out of that purchase despite what may be widely perceived today) while he was still Thailand's PM, so were his motives tied in with his political ambitions or not?

The purchase of Liverpool was going to be by Thailand the country, not Thaksin the individual and he planned to use State Lottery money to fund it. This caused uproar in Bangkok, forcing him to eventually shelve the idea.

The point I was making with my 'widely perceived' line was that Liverpool did not pull the plug on him.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

You can debate the rights and wrongs of Thaksin the politician til the cows come home (blatant corruption and self interest versus populist social policies and overwhelming rural support), but the debate about Thaksin the football club owner should be a very short-lived one; he was an unmitigated disaster.

Not so certain about that. The Club may well have gone into administration with Thaksin in control, but that could possibly have occurred any way.

Regardless of the politics, Manchester City survived because of Thaksin and now prospers because he sold the Club on.

In your later comment you say that it's not black and white and I'd agree with you on that. It certainly wasn't all bad. For one thing he was determined to get rid of Mackintosh, who really one one of the worst things to happen to this club in its recent history and largely responsible for running us into the ground, while still taking his bonus.

I've no idea how much of a role he played in bringing ADUG in but if he was crucial then he did indeed do us a huge favour. But if they hadn't been interested then he'd have certainly destroyed the club.

But I do have to quibble with your statement above that we might have gone into administration anyway. While our finances weren't good, we had enough income to make us viable. We were up there with Spurs and Newcastle but weren't as well run as Spurs have been.

Thaksin's first act was to splash out £15m of our Sky money on the first instalment on the group of players we bought in and then he had to borrow more to keep us going. We couldn't pay the second instalment one year later and that's why we were seriously looking at administration. Only a last ditch loan of £25m allowed us to pay that and kept us afloat but we wouldn't have survived much longer.

It was a fascinating time in the history of the club, possibly the most dramatic since the events of 1904-6 and I'm looking forward to reading your book Gary.

 

[Gary James]

You can debate the rights and wrongs of Thaksin the politician til the cows come home (blatant corruption and self interest versus populist social policies and overwhelming rural support), but the debate about Thaksin the football club owner should be a very short-lived one; he was an unmitigated disaster.

Not so certain about that. The Club may well have gone into administration with Thaksin in control, but that could possibly have occurred any way.

Regardless of the politics, Manchester City survived because of Thaksin and now prospers because he sold the Club on.

In your later comment you say that it's not black and white and I'd agree with you on that. It certainly wasn't all bad. For one thing he was determined to get rid of Mackintosh, who really one one of the worst things to happen to this club in its recent history and largely responsible for running us into the ground, while still taking his bonus.

I've no idea how much of a role he played in bringing ADUG in but if he was crucial then he did indeed do us a huge favour. But if they hadn't been interested then he'd have certainly destroyed the club.

But I do have to quibble with your statement above that we might have gone into administration anyway. While our finances weren't good, we had enough income to make us viable. We were up there with Spurs and Newcastle but weren't as well run as Spurs have been.

Thaksin's first act was to splash out £15m of our Sky money on the first instalment on the group of players we bought in and then he had to borrow more to keep us going. We couldn't pay the second instalment one year later and that's why we were seriously looking at administration. Only a last ditch loan of £25m allowed us to pay that and kept us afloat but we wouldn't have survived much longer.

It was a fascinating time in the history of the club, possibly the most dramatic since the events of 1904-6 and I'm looking forward to reading your book Gary.

It's all pretty interesting (now, that we've survived it all!) and it all depends on what people claim as well. I obviously share much of your thinking. One point worth investigating further - and to be frank I've not had chance but you may have done - concerns the increase in value of MCFC during his reign. Had only Sheikh Mansour been interested and Thaksin been desperate to sell to avoid admin, then why did the price increase? I'd be very interested in thoughts.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It's all pretty interesting (now, that we've survived it all!) and it all depends on what people claim as well. I obviously share much of your thinking. One point worth investigating further - and to be frank I've not had chance but you may have done - concerns the increase in value of MCFC during his reign. Had only Sheikh Mansour been interested and Thaksin been desperate to sell to avoid admin, then why did the price increase? I'd be very interested in thoughts.

I did go through the relevant accounts last year to try to understand what money changed hands but it was difficult, as there were a number of transactions involving payments to Thaksin-controlled companies so it was impossible to follow the trail.

You have to be careful with media reporting of takeovers as they tend to be inaccurate. For example, a company's value includes its debt so at the time of Thaksin's takeover, our debt was around £60m. However he only paid £21.6m for the shares but it was reported in the media as a £81.6m takeover.

We took on considerably more debt during his ownership, some directly and some through Thaksin companies, possibly as much as £90m, in addition to the debt already in place. So while a figure of over £200m was mentioned in some quarters, it's difficult to establish how much cash actually changed hands.

 

[Gary James]

We took on considerably more debt during his ownership, some directly and some through Thaksin companies, possibly as much as £90m, in addition to the debt already in place. So while a figure of over £200m was mentioned in some quarters, it's difficult to establish how much cash actually changed hands.

There were plenty of twists and turns and lots of people making claims. I've tried to get a balanced view from all sides but, obviously, that's not always easy. Fascinating story all the same.

 

[mammutly]

Thaksin put no money into City.

His personal demands delayed the takeover. His face saving honoury presidency, that was quietly removed last year was a sop to his ego. I know something of the position of the ADUG at the time and it was not favourable towards Thaksin - they just wanted him out of the way and he made things very awkward for a time.

Whatever certain people inside the club might say or think now that things have turned out well, the fact remains that Thaksin gambled with the future of the club by reckless borrowing. With due respect to all concerned, the man put nothing into City.