mammutly said:
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.
His final months at City were clearly desperate ones for him. His demands and exit strategy were only in his interests, that is fair. However, how much of this was influenced by the situation in Thailand and the freezing of 'his' assets? It is also not too much different to the way others have behaved - at the time Thaksin left City had several 'honorary presidents', some like Tony Book were deserved, some of the others were tied in with various deals and so on. Even Peter Swales negotiated something similar to what Thaksin got when he sold out (and yes, Swales was a Blue and had been there longer, but who ultimately did the longer-lasting damage no matter how much he cared for the Club?).
I have interviewed many of the key figures involved and heard lots of good and lots of bad about Thaksin. I was also present at quite a few of his meetings with City staff/managers and spoken with some of 'his' people. In all the early meetings he expressed nothing that suggested he would be in it for the short term. He was clearly not a football man, but some of his business ideas were at a better level - for City - than had gone before and aimed to have a long time frame, not short term 'to bring in a few bucks' thinking. They were minor in comparison with now, of course, but much better than some of what had gone before. So, I don't believe he put nothing in - he did put ideas in and he did make some staffing changes that were in the Club's long term best interests (and helped sell the Club in the right way at the next takeover).
I firmly believe today's owner and leaders are by far the best in the business now, and will point to lots of different factors to prove this (even though the media talk about 'ruining football'). It's not about the money, it's about the long term planning.
However, this should not detract from the transformation that did occur during Thaksin's time - some good, some bad.
As for Thaksin's own personal gain... obviously none of us can support that, but then I could talk about a few former directors, staff and so on who have treated the Club as if it was their own personal possession, not put anything in, and not worried about what they take from 'our' club. It could be viewed as a despicable act no matter who does it.
Gambling with City's future - Thaksin certainly wasn't the first and we still haven't fully recovered from the damage done in the late 70s-90s.
Delayed the takeover - yes, but again nothing like the stuff that had gone before.
Thaksin's reign at City changed the Club. There was some good and some bad. This is true of all our owners over the years - how many people on here still disagree about the successes of the Swales and Lee periods?
As I've said before, it's not straightforward. Circumstances changed for Thaksin during his period of ownership and that had an impact on his aims for City, resulting in what we saw in those final months. The politics/finance of another country should not impact on an English football club but I bet another club's owner will be impacted by overseas issues again in the future. Let's hope it's never our turn again.
