sylofox Posted 9 June 2015 Posted 9 June 2015 I like the owners but we should never ever feel grateful because they haven't changed the colour of the kit of left us destitute. That should be the minimum requirement. Them being good owners does not mean they cannot or should not be questioned. That's the kind of approach that results in fans being bent over. They have not tried to make a major change just bring a little bit of Thailand with them. A major change yes but a little flag really? I have worked with people that have pictures of the kids or grand kids on the office desk. So would it be right if a boss said everyone get rid. No as it makes people happy as there flag makes them happy and they want to share there culture with us so we understand them a little more. They are family people and want a family atmosphere they are proud of where they come from and would expect they want us to be proud too.
Merging Cultures Posted 9 June 2015 Posted 9 June 2015 'Unreasoned' is the key word there. I cannot be accused of that because the thing I'm (mildly) concerned about is actually happening. It's not a particularly big thing but since the subject came up I felt it was worth stating my view. I've only continued with this conversation because it annoys me to be unfairly accused of disliking foreigners. What's actually happening?!!And xenophobia doesn't have to be about foreigners necessarily, just about something 'foreign' or 'strange'.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 9 June 2015 Posted 9 June 2015 I'm surprised we don't play the Thailand national anthem before each home game. That's if they have one, which I imagine they do. Just think, everyone in the ground would be able to stand!
LJS Posted 9 June 2015 Posted 9 June 2015 They could do whatever they want, but they won't because they need you to spend your money. There is nothing romantic, like that it is your club with an amazing history. No. It's their club, they have bought the history, and it is your cash they are interested in. Sorry to break it to you.. Don't try patronising me, it doesn't work. You don't get to choose if there's nothing romantic. That's down to how the people who follow the club feel, not suits or signatures. Of course they are interested in my cash, but without the intangible emotional connection there is no point to any of it. Football actually does mean something. Football clubs are rooted in communities and cannot exist without them. Clubs have represented working groups, political factions, churches and who knows what else. Emotion, history and community is an integral part of the game. If nobody went to matches or cared about the club then there isn't money to be made. They need us more than we need them. I don't understand how you can get any enjoyment from watching the game the way you see it. I genuinely feel sorry for you. As for your point about fans wanting their club to be the best; that's only true to an extent. I do not want success at any price. If I felt any owners crossed a line I'd withdraw my support. I'd rather watch Leicester City in the Midland Football League playing in blue than see us win the league in gold, for instance.
Harry - LCFC Posted 9 June 2015 Posted 9 June 2015 It's a business, and the way it works is to keep your fans happy. The owners need us to feel like we belong, that we are special, so that we continue to buy tickets and merchandise. If they removed our history, changed the name, played elsewhere, they'd lose fans. There know this, they are not daft. So it is a moot point. It's only 'our club' because the business of football needs us to believe that. Why not go and support Oadby Town?! I'll try to remind you of this next time you're celebrating a particular success on FT.
Carl the Llama Posted 9 June 2015 Posted 9 June 2015 If the owners left us tomorrow and nobody else was interested the club would re-emerge in non-league. It would live on for as long as there was interest from the community in sustaining it. A football club does not exist because of or for those who own it. It exists because of and for the community it represents. Leicester City FC was here long before the current owners had even heard of it and will survive long after they disappear. But it just so happens that the people behind the money which funded our recent push to the Premier League, bought out our stadium, stuck with Pearson when 90% of owners wouldn't have been able to see the bigger picture, etc, come from Thailand. When they've shared their culture with us, it's been done in a way which doesn't impose any change of the club's image other than to give it more of a family atmosphere. Given all that I'd say Thailand is definitely an intrinsic part of contemporary LCFC and it's fair enough that we have a flag representing that fact. It's a single, understated way of acknowledging that Thai influence. In this future of yours where they are no longer a part of LCFC and we're playing non-league football, is the lack of a Thailand flag really going to be worth it? You'd be happy to see games played in the US then? Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes was perfectly fine then? Of course it's our club. Ownership can be more than a set of legal documents. See above. I like the owners but we should never ever feel grateful because they haven't changed the colour of the kit of left us destitute. That should be the minimum requirement. Them being good owners does not mean they cannot or should not be questioned. That's the kind of approach that results in fans being bent over. They share their wealth and business acumen with us, we happily let them flap a piece of fabric. If that's bending over then Forest, Cardiff, Hull et al. have spread themselves so wide you could moor the Trident programme up each one of their backsides.
Jordan Posted 9 June 2015 Posted 9 June 2015 Wasn't there an Icelandic flag outside the Brittania Stadium when Stoke were owned by Icelanders a few years back?
Merging Cultures Posted 10 June 2015 Posted 10 June 2015 I'll try to remind you of this next time you're celebrating a particular success on FT.I take enjoyment from Leicester being successful, whether it is the rugby or football. We all want to be able to brag that we are better than x and be associated with success. Football is enjoyable to watch, especially when City are being successful. Just because it is a business doesn't mean I can't enjoy seeing my home town being successful. And if that requires a Thai flag outside the ground or some gold trim, then that's perfectly fine by me.
Merging Cultures Posted 10 June 2015 Posted 10 June 2015 . Don't try patronising me, it doesn't work. You don't get to choose if there's nothing romantic. That's down to how the people who follow the club feel, not suits or signatures. Of course they are interested in my cash, but without the intangible emotional connection there is no point to any of it. Football actually does mean something. Football clubs are rooted in communities and cannot exist without them. Clubs have represented working groups, political factions, churches and who knows what else. Emotion, history and community is an integral part of the game. If nobody went to matches or cared about the club then there isn't money to be made. They need us more than we need them. I don't understand how you can get any enjoyment from watching the game the way you see it. I genuinely feel sorry for you. As for your point about fans wanting their club to be the best; that's only true to an extent. I do not want success at any price. If I felt any owners crossed a line I'd withdraw my support. I'd rather watch Leicester City in the Midland Football League playing in blue than see us win the league in gold, for instance. Your intangible emotional attachment can't be very strong if you would stop supporting the club because of a colour change. It's not like we've never played in yellow/orange/gold hues before! It seems very irrational to me that one would profess that a club is integral to their community and life yet not back them for rather petty reasons. History and tradition can't be taken away, they exist in memories, books, trophies etc. The current owners are adding to and enriching our history and tradition. The flag and bits of gold trim are part of that. It's a shame people seem to be scared of what's new or different.
desertfox2 Posted 10 June 2015 Posted 10 June 2015 Why is it that we have to have a Thai flag outside our ground.....Its like they have planted it there stating we have been conquered. There is no stars and stripes outside Old Trafford or Anfield....No Russian flag outside Stamford Bridge or any other foreign flags flying at English football clubs that have become foreign owners new play things......So why us ?????? Yes I know that most City fans think the owners are fab and all that, but it just gripes the hell out of me that our stadium is named after a Thai Duty free business and that statement of a flag is outside..... 'The King Power' .... do me a favour ... 'Filbert Way' please and take that dam flag down. I wouldn't care if they built a statue of the Thai King outside the KP if they keep doing what they are doing.
Leicester_Numan Posted 10 June 2015 Posted 10 June 2015 Our owners haven't messed with anything that matters, our history, traditions, name, home shirt colour and location remain intact. So, not only is LCFC essentially the same club under the owners, it's in a much better state than it's ever been in because of them. As long as that continues to be the case, any little bits of their nationality or culture they care to share with us is perfectly ok with me, I'm not even remotely fussed by any of it.
davieG Posted 10 June 2015 Posted 10 June 2015 Never mind the Thai flag why are we flying the Union flag it should be the English flag as we're in the English Premier League.
Guest MattP Posted 10 June 2015 Posted 10 June 2015 Being called racist as you don't want the Thai flag outside the ground, I swear accusations of isms and phobias is fast becoming our new national sport. For what's worth I'm not that bothered, personally think it should just be a Union Flag and an LCFC flag outside but I'm certainly not going to get worked up about it, the elephants pissed me off far more as they were totally pointless, nothing to do with us and bloody hideous on the eyes.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.