Jump to content

City Say Bye Bye Thaksin!


lemel

Recommended Posts

Former owner Thaksin Shinawatra has been told by Manchester City that he is no longer welcomed at the club.

Thaksin sold City to current owner Sheikh Mansour of the Abu Dahbi Royal Family last summer and made a hefty 50 million pound profit from the sale.

The former Thai premier was handed the title of Honorary President at the City of Manchester Stadium but has been stripped off the title.

He was informed over a conference call last week that his presence was no longer welcomed at City.

His name has been removed from matchday programmes and from the wall in the boardroom at the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Former owner Thaksin Shinawatra has been told by Manchester City that he is no longer welcomed at the club.

Thaksin sold City to current owner Sheikh Mansour of the Abu Dahbi Royal Family last summer and made a hefty 50 million pound profit from the sale.

The former Thai premier was handed the title of Honorary President at the City of Manchester Stadium but has been stripped off the title.

He was informed over a conference call last week that his presence was no longer welcomed at City.

His name has been removed from matchday programmes and from the wall in the boardroom at the club.

Well, without a British Visa, one could imagine that this is a bit late in coming. Thankfully, we don't have to discuss this topic anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchester City dump fugtive Thaksin from president's role

Manchester City have dismissed ญThaksin Shinawatra from his position as the honorary club president after deciding the time was right to take a stance against a man who has been convicted of multi-million-pound corruption and is ญcurrently on the run from the authorities in Thailand after being sentenced to two years in prison.

City's rulers in Abu Dhabi took the decision after high-level talks over the past few weeks to determine what to do about the way the former owner had become an increasing source of embarrassment to his successors at Eastlands.

The new owner, Sheikh Mansour Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and the chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, concluded that it would be "inappropriate" to allow Thaksin to continue holding such a prominent position and that the former prime minister of Thailand should become the first high-profile casualty of their reign.

Simon Pearce, the sheikh's personal envoy, and the other English representatives on City's board were also aware that the Premier League had strong objections about the involvement of a fugitive who was once described by Human Rights Watch as "a human-rights abuser of the worst kind".

Thaksin, who accepted the position when he sold the club to ADUG last ­September, has been on the run, spending time in the Middle East, China and the Bahamas, since his UK visa was cancelled in November. His current whereabouts are a mystery to City but the club's executive chairman, Garry Cook, managed to get a message to the 59-year-old, via intermediaries, before the 1-0 defeat of Middlesbrough on Saturday.

Thaksin's name was subsequently removed from the match-day programme and has also been taken off the club's ­website as well as various places inside the stadium.

The decision is understood to have been accepted by Thaksin and has gone down well inside the City boardroom, with one high-ranking official recently saying that it was "disgusting" that a convicted criminal should be allowed an honorary role at the club.

Thaksin, ironically, is still a popular ­figure with many City supporters, who credit him with rescuing the club from financial hardship and setting up the ADUG deal. However, City are also aware of fans who refused to watch the club while Thaksin and his family were in ­control at Eastlands.

Thaksin, who made a ฃ120m profit by selling City, may now try to sell his remaining 10% stake in the club as tries to build a new life - he is reported to be building a ฃ5.5m property in China - and fight Thailand's extradition procedures. He has always maintained his innocence, describing his conviction at Thailand's supreme court last October as "politically motivated", and claiming he had to flee the country because it was not safe for him to stay.

-- The Guardian, UK 2009-02-11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon Pearce, the sheikh's personal envoy, and the other English representatives on City's board were also aware that the Premier League had strong objections about the involvement of a fugitive who was once described by Human Rights Watch as "a human-rights abuser of the worst kind".

Strong objections?! That's a laugh. So how did he pass their fit and proper persons test i wonder? Took his money first and asked questions later. Disgusting.

However, City are also aware of fans who refused to watch the club while Thaksin and his family were in ­control at Eastlands.

These fans are a credit to their club (and society) and have my utmost respect. I'm impressed. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon Pearce, the sheikh's personal envoy, and the other English representatives on City's board were also aware that the Premier League had strong objections about the involvement of a fugitive who was once described by Human Rights Watch as "a human-rights abuser of the worst kind".

Strong objections?! That's a laugh. So how did he pass their fit and proper persons test i wonder? Took his money first and asked questions later. Disgusting.

However, City are also aware of fans who refused to watch the club while Thaksin and his family were in ­control at Eastlands.

These fans are a credit to their club (and society) and have my utmost respect. I'm impressed. :o

Agree with all of that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No surprise really, after he was actually convicted. Up until then, in English law, he was still innocent.

Are you saying that all there is to the fit and proper persons test is a check of whether the person has been convicted of a crime or not? I thought there was more to it than that, or at least supposed to be. If not, perhaps "convicted persons test" might be a more appropriate name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No surprise really, after he was actually convicted. Up until then, in English law, he was still innocent.

Are you saying that all there is to the fit and proper persons test is a check of whether the person has been convicted of a crime or not? I thought there was more to it than that, or at least supposed to be. If not, perhaps "convicted persons test" might be a more appropriate name?

No, I'm not saying that at all. Yes there is more to it than that. However, I couldn't recite the "Fit and proper persons test" verbatim but i do know he passed it when he bought the club. Not my rules and i wasn't on the panel who made them up. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No surprise really, after he was actually convicted. Up until then, in English law, he was still innocent.

Are you saying that all there is to the fit and proper persons test is a check of whether the person has been convicted of a crime or not? I thought there was more to it than that, or at least supposed to be. If not, perhaps "convicted persons test" might be a more appropriate name?

No, I'm not saying that at all. Yes there is more to it than that. However, I couldn't recite the "Fit and proper persons test" verbatim but i do know he passed it when he bought the club. Not my rules and i wasn't on the panel who made them up. :o

As you accept that there is more to the "fit and proper persons test" than just whether said person has a conviction or not, i'm a bit confused as to why you brought up the whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

Anyway, the fact that as you say he did pass it, shows that it's a useless test that might as well be scraped. If ever there was an unfit person, and moreover an unfit person who was purely driven by his own political agenda, rather than any interest in football or the club itself, it was him.

Nevermind the silly and worthless test, that he was ever embraced and welcomed by the club and some if not most of the fans is the really sad part of all this.

Anyway, i have climbed on my soapbox about this one enough times for some, especially the likes of MrBojangles, to be i'm sure quite tired of it all - it is thankfully in the past after all.

Not making any promises mate, but i will try to leave this one to rest. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way he has shown himself to be unfit to run a football club is by spending 10s of millions of pounds that neither he nor Man City had and didnt bring any success, this kind of business strategy would have eventually bankrupted the club if it wasnt for the Arab billionaires.

From what i gather Man City fans liked him for spending lots of money then selling up to someone with too much money.

Edited by sanmiguel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way he has shown himself to be unfit to run a football club is by spending 10s of millions of pounds that neither he nor Man City had and didnt bring any success, this kind of business strategy would have eventually bankrupted the club if it wasnt for the Arab billionaires.

He actually took us from being about 50mil in the red, to being in the black, even after spending millions. He had this money available despite his frozen money in Thailand. He sold out cos he couldn't release the frozen assets and to be honest, he did a good job of finding a suitable new owner.

As for success. Well, that season we finished higher than we have ever finished before. So whether you can call that success in his first season, depends on your view of success.

From what i gather Man City fans liked him for spending lots of money then selling up to someone with too much money.

That about sums it up :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He actually took us from being about 50mil in the red, to being in the black, even after spending millions. He had this money available despite his frozen money in Thailand.

How no club generate this kind of profit bar Man U in 2 years, not many owners actually use their own money its often a interest free loan to the club.

Even abromovich does it this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He actually took us from being about 50mil in the red, to being in the black, even after spending millions. He had this money available despite his frozen money in Thailand.

How no club generate this kind of profit bar Man U in 2 years, not many owners actually use their own money its often a interest free loan to the club.

Even abromovich does it this way.

Sorry sanmiguel but i got to disagree. Man U certainly don't get an interest free loan. In fact the Glaziers had to pay way above the normal interest rates to buy Man U and put them something like 600 or 700 mill in the red. Abramovich bank rolled Chelsea out of his own money and they are only just now trying to be a self funding club. They are obviously all extremely clever guys with their dosh but whatever way you slice and dice it, we went from owing the bank 50 or so mill to being able to splash out on players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to stick my ore in guys,....but I could be well and truly wrong,......anyway here goes.....we know what human rights watch say(and I posted their comment on thaivisa yonks ago)about Thaksin,....but when you look at how the military/police seem to be a law unto itself ,its kinda got me thiking a bit,........perhaps Thaksin is only guilty of not stopping the Police/military,......when they were killing all those suspected drug dealers , small time crooks and muslim insurgents,.....Maybe I jumped the gun on this one? allthough doing nothing means he is just as culpable,...doesn't it?...you know "I promise to rid this country of it's drug problem ect" there is so much hidden in Thai life politics that the whole story is sometimes impossible to unravel.

Edited by dee123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S..... I was on my way to the airport that day Thaksin narrowly escaped a bomb plot,....but I thought to myself ....hmmmm "I bet Thaksin done that himself to sway public opinion",....at the time it was obvious to many farangs living in LOS that Thaksin had embarked on a massive PR campaign,....and this was just part of it......I still don't know for sure??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He actually took us from being about 50mil in the red, to being in the black, even after spending millions. He had this money available despite his frozen money in Thailand.

How no club generate this kind of profit bar Man U in 2 years, not many owners actually use their own money its often a interest free loan to the club.

Even abromovich does it this way.

Sorry sanmiguel but i got to disagree. Man U certainly don't get an interest free loan. In fact the Glaziers had to pay way above the normal interest rates to buy Man U and put them something like 600 or 700 mill in the red. Abramovich bank rolled Chelsea out of his own money and they are only just now trying to be a self funding club. They are obviously all extremely clever guys with their dosh but whatever way you slice and dice it, we went from owing the bank 50 or so mill to being able to splash out on players.

Glazers arent that rich, so they had to use the banks money to buy ManU, hence theyd nowt to lend but ManU are in a league of about 6 global clubs who are as good as a licence to print money.

Abromovich has no doubt ploughed tons into Chelsea but in todays figures it showed a huge loan from Abramovich to Chelsea, 339 million GBP to be exact

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...zQmlql9q7zeOmYg

Im just curious as to how they went from a debt to having cash in the bank in the year or 2 he was there, Taksin must have digged deep afterall, if the Man City accounts showed no debts or loans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to stick my ore in guys,....but I could be well and truly wrong,......anyway here goes.....we know what human rights watch say(and I posted their comment on thaivisa yonks ago)about Thaksin,....but when you look at how the military/police seem to be a law unto itself ,its kinda got me thiking a bit,........perhaps Thaksin is only guilty of not stopping the Police/military,......when they were killing all those suspected drug dealers , small time crooks and muslim insurgents,.....Maybe I jumped the gun on this one? allthough doing nothing means he is just as culpable,...doesn't it?...you know "I promise to rid this country of it's drug problem ect" there is so much hidden in Thai life politics that the whole story is sometimes impossible to unravel.

No offense meant,mate.

This is the 'football forum. Most of us on here, certainly on the MCFC forum, dont want to get involved discussing political sh!te.

There are other threads involving Thaksin and City on other forums. Maybe you will get someone responding to your thoughts on there. But please, do us a favour, dont clutter up our football discussions :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 3

      Thailand Live Monday 23 September 2024

    2. 0

      Suspected Drunk Drivers in Thailand to Face New Testing Methods

    3. 0

      A Grim Warning for Global Sea Levels The Secrets of the Doomsday Glacier

    4. 0

      Labour Leaders to Reject Free Clothing: Starmer and Rayner Announce Change

    5. 0

      Farage Declares "Bigots Not Welcome" as Reform UK Aims for Professionalism

    6. 0

      Kamala Harris Blames Trump Policies for Deaths of Two Georgia Women

    7. 0

      Kamala Harris' Media Absence Defended: Adviser Cites Busy Schedule

    8. 0

      Putin Urges Women to Work and Have a Family as Birth Rates Drop in Russia

    9. 0

      Britain's Reluctance to Challenge the Powerful: A System Under Scrutiny

    10. 0

      Care Homes Urged to Embrace Transgender Identities in Elderly Care

    11. 123

      Are these people stark raving mad?

    12. 89

      Americans -- did you know that Albania wants us? (Another Plan B alternative to Thailand)

    13. 123

      Are these people stark raving mad?

    14. 27

      Is Civil Unrest Inevitable If Trump Loses?

×
×
  • Create New...
""