Thai Monarch

[string the Eskimo]

2 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

It’s concerning how many are taking the “if it makes the owners happy then it’s fine with me”. It’s a dangerous precedent to set, that - how many celebrities over time got away with horrendous crimes because of their profile and people not wanting to challenge that profile or feeling that it was somehow acceptable because of their celebrity?

 

We have amazing owners but I think we should also, as a fan base, take responsibility for what our club is being used for. It’s a moral question.

 

Yes, in practice it doesn’t affect us too much: a billboard here, an announcement there. But on a moral level it’s a whole lot more; an endorsement of a suppression of democracy and freedom of voice.

 

Would the same people who are perfectly fine with it now have also been fine with it had we had German owners in the 30s/40s and they wanted to endorse Hitler and the Nazis at Filbert Street?

 

The Thais have been fairly respectful of traditions since they arrived and what benefit they use their profile from owning the club for is none of my business. I’m sure it gives them access to social circles they didn’t previously have here in the UK on a personal level but that’s different to using our club’s name as a vehicle to drive a political message/agenda.

 

@Union FS - I’d be interested to hear your take on this and whether you’ve used your voice to feedback to the club that fans might not be so keen to have a Thai political message pushed on them? These are exactly the kind of things that a fan group should be at least providing some feedback on.

 

 

While I understand your viewpoint I can't help thinking if I felt that strongly I'd hand in my season ticket and refuse to go until they leave. Having morals is fine so long as you stand by them.

[TJB-fox]

Who genuinely cares? What the owners have done for the club, with such integrity and the culture they’ve brought to the KP I think we as a fan base can respect their views. 

[Freeman's Wharfer]

11 minutes ago, string the Eskimo said:

While I understand your viewpoint I can't help thinking if I felt that strongly I'd hand in my season ticket and refuse to go until they leave. Having morals is fine so long as you stand by them.

I don’t see why you would feel it not possible for me to think the Thai owners have been brilliant owners of the football club, appreciate that they’ve done a huge amount for the club and the local community yet still not agree with them using the club to endorse a political entity in Thailand or to not feel that being great owners of the football club should allow them to push a political message on behalf of if.

 

It’s also possible to express distaste or displeasure at something happening without completely abandoning it. I don’t like many morals of Uber as a company but there are many things about their service that I like, for example, and this doesn’t prevent me using their app.

 

This issue is not big enough or offensive enough for me to completely abandon my support of my football club. But I think that it’s a dangerous precedent to not discuss it, express that it doesn’t sit right with me or to excuse it for many of the reasons that people have.

Edited 13 May 2019 by Freeman's Wharfer

[volpeazzurro]

10 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Because the current situation in Thailand isn’t pretty. Media is censored, elections are considered rigged (there wasn’t a democratic election for 8 years) and you are not allowed to criticise the monarchy in any way. 

 

It’s not pretty. I don’t want my club being used as a vehicle for this. 

 

 

Compared to our country where we had a national referendum whereupon  (agree with it or not), the people came to a majority decision. Following which our poiticians embarked upon little more than finely worded conspiracies to ignore and avoid that majority decision. People in glass houses?

[CosbehFox]

2 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Compared to our country where we had a national referendum whereupon  (agree with it or not), the people came to a majority decision. Following which our poiticians embarked upon little more than finely worded conspiracies to ignore and avoid that majority decision. People in glass houses?

Let’s compare that to the following then :- 

 

A Thai citizen was arrested for making a joke about the King’s dog. That’s how depressingly low free speech is considered in Thailand. 

 

 

Edited 13 May 2019 by Cardiff_Fox

[Bluetintedspecs]

3 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

It’s concerning how many are taking the “if it makes the owners happy then it’s fine with me”. It’s a dangerous precedent to set, that - how many celebrities over time got away with horrendous crimes because of their profile and people not wanting to challenge that profile or feeling that it was somehow acceptable because of their celebrity?

 

We have amazing owners but I think we should also, as a fan base, take responsibility for what our club is being used for. It’s a moral question.

 

Yes, in practice it doesn’t affect us too much: a billboard here, an announcement there. But on a moral level it’s a whole lot more; an endorsement of a suppression of democracy and freedom of voice.

 

Would the same people who are perfectly fine with it now have also been fine with it had we had German owners in the 30s/40s and they wanted to endorse Hitler and the Nazis at Filbert Street?

 

The Thais have been fairly respectful of traditions since they arrived and what benefit they use their profile from owning the club for is none of my business. I’m sure it gives them access to social circles they didn’t previously have here in the UK on a personal level but that’s different to using our club’s name as a vehicle to drive a political message/agenda.

 

@Union FS - I’d be interested to hear your take on this and whether you’ve used your voice to feedback to the club that fans might not be so keen to have a Thai political message pushed on them? These are exactly the kind of things that a fan group should be at least providing some feedback on.

 

 

I respect your right to that opinion, however, if you feel that strongly about the brief message on the screen then you should either gather your like minded fans and protest or, if you feel that strongly about it, vote with your feet and not renew your season ticket.

I look forward to hearing which course of action YOU take and by that I don't mean fobbing off your major concerns to a 'fans group'. 

I would hazard a guess the people upset by this is a very small minority and courage of convictions will not be applied.

 

[volpeazzurro]

2 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Let’s compare that to the following then :- 

 

A Thai citizen was arrested for making a joke about the King’s dog. That’s how depressingly low free speech is considered in Thailand. 

 

 

And a Leicester MP is caught by the media with rent boys appearing to procure them into getting some cocaine, which is called being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs, a criminal offence. Was it investigated?  Didn't hear anything about it did you? Is this any less murkey? He who casts the first stone. Are our politicians whiter than theirs or is our propaganda machine better and we don't know what really goes on? 

[CosbehFox]

I think a percentage of our fans at times forgot that they need us as much as we need them. Whilst their investment as undoubtedly worked wonders and we’ve been lucky enough for them to reward civic investment as well. No one knew King Power before they bought us and without us, they’d be largely faceless to a worldwide audience. 

 

Respect works both ways. We should be thankful but to the point that they understand there was a football club for 120 years before King Power’s ownership. 

Edited 13 May 2019 by Cardiff_Fox

[CosbehFox]

7 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

And a Leicester MP is caught by the media with rent boys appearing to procure them into getting some cocaine, which is called being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs, a criminal offence. Was it investigated?  Didn't hear anything about it did you? Is this any less murkey? He who casts the first stone. Are our politicians whiter than theirs or is our propaganda machine better and we don't know what really goes on? 

Again that’s get back to the point on here, politics and football don’t mix. That’s the first issue and we generally don’t see political parties push through the medium of football clubs. 

 

Mr Vaz can be voted out of his position to four to five year intervals, that’s democracy.

 

Just to add if Mr Vaz was a Thai politician and did that in thailand, the likelihood is that it wouldn’t reach the press

Edited 13 May 2019 by Cardiff_Fox

[jonthefox]

11 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Let’s compare that to the following then :- 

 

A Thai citizen was arrested for making a joke about the King’s dog. That’s how depressingly low free speech is considered in Thailand. 

 

 

It was a false acu-Alsatian ?

[volpeazzurro]

11 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Again that’s get back to the point on here, politics and football don’t mix. That’s the first issue and we generally don’t see political parties push through the medium of football clubs. 

 

Mr Vaz can be voted out of his position to four to five year intervals, that’s democracy.

In essence I do tend to agree re politics, we're there for football first and formost aren't we after all. However, whether we agree with our royal family or not, the national anthem will be sang by the majority of the crowd before the cup final with most of the crowd upstanding. Likewise, should anything happen to our queen and a new king be crowned, it will be a big issue in this country. Likewise, love him or not  (I don't know enough about him), the last Thai king died after a long reign and it was an even bigger issue there. As respected members of the Thai community it is quite understandable in my opinion that our proud owners wanted to commemorate the event of the investiture of their new king. I don't know the provenance regarding the story of the man you speak about and his arrest  but I  did see another seemingly normal citizen being interviewed by the BBC who had travelled many miles and days to get to the event as it was so emotionsl and important to him. Other cultures may do things differently to us. Their countries and circumstances are different but just because they are different to ours doesn't necessarily make them wrong, just different. We've got Premiership owners from rich oligarchs to mega rich Arabs from countries and regimes quite alien to ours, some we know are extremely doubtful. I don't see the short acknowledgement of an event of huge significance to our owners and the people of Thailand to be that of huge political indoctrination issue, possibly more an insight into their culture though it may curry them some favour over there and I have no problem with that either. Actually, I quite like some of the things that they've introduced that are culturally different and feel quite comfortable with it.  There's good and bad things about Thailand, just as there is in the UK. 

Edited 14 May 2019 by volpeazzurro

[Stadt]

I don’t think anybody has an issue with our owners showing respect to their new king but the problem arises in that our football club isn’t the medium to do it.

[Dan LCFC]

7 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Astounding. I knew that those with questionable links and backgrounds could buy influence and power on a personal level by owning high profile clubs but I hadn’t realised that you could so spectacularly whitewash political issues with a bit of success and a few freebies.

Incredible isn't it really.

[Vindaloo FOX]

I live in Thailand and I must say the Thai King, King number 9 was a incredible man, did so much for Thailand and even I have grown to love him.

 

His son who is King now is not that well loved though. 

 

Without our Thai owners and their money that they have been able to make from the help of the Thai royal family we would not be where we are.

 

 

Edited 14 May 2019 by Vindaloo FOX

[Guybino]

As someone who has been living in Thailand for 2 years, and after reading many of these comments, I don't think a lot of people fully understand how revered the royal family is here. It is a crime to criticize or speak ill of them in any way, and they should be praised at every opportunity - especially by a large company on foreign soil. 

 

"lese majeste" is a law here. 

[Guybino]

3 hours ago, Stadt said:

I don’t think anybody has an issue with our owners showing respect to their new king but the problem arises in that our football club isn’t the medium to do it.

I agree with you, but as the owner is Thai and has the word "King" in the company name ... makes things a bit more complicated.

Edited 14 May 2019 by Guybino

[SemperEadem]

3 hours ago, Guybino said:

As someone who has been living in Thailand for 2 years, and after reading many of these comments, I don't think a lot of people fully understand how revered the royal family is here. It is a crime to criticize or speak ill of them in any way, and they should be praised at every opportunity - especially by a large company on foreign soil. 

 

"lese majeste" is a law here. 

No I think most do, in fact many have made that point that it is already pretty common knowledge and understood.

 

What those that keep saying about how important the Thai King is, is that absolutely that is the case however Leicester City Football Club should not be a vehicle to promote or push them.

 

And that is in no way a dig or a slander on our owners which a lot seem to also think anyone who feels uneasy with it is pushing. 

 

[Guest MattP]

Really really strange - Leicester City should not be used a vehicle for any political statement at all, let alone one as draconian as the Thai one.

 

Surprised at how many are fine with it just because we have success on the pitch.

[Guest MattP]

FWIT it's the Premier League who should be stopping things like this - rules should be in place to stop it's clubs being used in this way. 

[string the Eskimo]

11 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

I don’t see why you would feel it not possible for me to think the Thai owners have been brilliant owners of the football club, appreciate that they’ve done a huge amount for the club and the local community yet still not agree with them using the club to endorse a political entity in Thailand or to not feel that being great owners of the football club should allow them to push a political message on behalf of if.

 

It’s also possible to express distaste or displeasure at something happening without completely abandoning it. I don’t like many morals of Uber as a company but there are many things about their service that I like, for example, and this doesn’t prevent me using their app.

 

This issue is not big enough or offensive enough for me to completely abandon my support of my football club. But I think that it’s a dangerous precedent to not discuss it, express that it doesn’t sit right with me or to excuse it for many of the reasons that people have.

Ok fair points. But I still feel that it's not a case of morality. Without the support of the Thai Royal family the King Power franchise would not exist, and neither would our club be in the strong position it is without our owners who through the money brought in by King power turned this club around. It's just business and in business, you have to press palms and dance to the piper's tune. We as individuals as fans make no difference, we can discuss until we are blue in the face about whether it sits right with us, we don't own the club and I'm sure the owners have earned the right to push their own politics, it's a small price to pay for what we now have. 

Edited 14 May 2019 by string the Eskimo

[Footballwipe]

There have been many opinions I agree with on this thread, so I'm not going to tread over old ground. However, there is a question I want to ask those who have absolutely no problem with it.

 

Where does it stop? Do you have a limit? I mean as people have said this is all about currying favour with the new king, and people don't have an issue. That's fine, but this is a new king, and the duty free contract is supposedly up soon and we don't know what he's like or what he'll expect. So let's hypothesise that, say, a portrait of the king replaces the Bia Saigon arm patch. Do people have an issue with that?

 

Maybe there's a picture or slogan honouring the king at the bottom of the shirt. Or even a proclamation like we had on Sunday before every home game. What, even, if they wanted to tamper with the crest or colour of the shirt. I mean at the end of the day without our owners we wouldn't be where we are today, so we have to help them respect their head of state, don't we?

 

These are admittedly extreme examples but we don't know what lengths the corporate structure may reach to in order to keep the king happy. Ultimately there's probably not a lot we can do in any case, but it makes me quite uncomfortable when some wave this through as "no issue" when it could just be the start of an increase in this kind of thing going forward. At the very least there should be a begrudging acceptance with heavy caution.

 

So where would it cross the line for people? I'm genuinely intrigued.

[Izzy]

4 hours ago, Guybino said:

I don't think a lot of people fully understand how revered the royal family is here. It is a crime to criticize or speak ill of them in any way, and they should be praised at every opportunity 

Should be the same with our Royal Family imo 

[Foxxed]

We've been caught up in Thai politics since Vichai bought us. Because Vichai bought us with the money from the King Power franchaise.

 

And the King Power franchaise exists because of the Thai King.

 

The club was saved because a businessman was friends with the Thai King.

 

Acting surprised that we're involved with Thai politics is as ridiculous as Man City fans acting outraged their club is involved in Saudi politics.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Foxxed said:

We've been caught up in Thai politics since Vichai bought us. Because Vichai bought us with the money from the King Power franchaise.

 

And the King Power franchaise exists because of the Thai King.

 

The club was saved because a businessman was friends with the Thai King.

 

Acting surprised that we're involved with Thai politics is as ridiculous as Man City fans acting outraged their club is involved in Saudi politics.

Nobody's "acting surprised" though. They're just saying it's a bit much for the club to be promoting it in a very public way, and that it doesn't sit comfortably with them.

[Crispin LA]

1 hour ago, Foxxed said:

We've been caught up in Thai politics since Vichai bought us. Because Vichai bought us with the money from the King Power franchaise.

 

And the King Power franchaise exists because of the Thai King.

 

The club was saved because a businessman was friends with the Thai King.

 

Acting surprised that we're involved with Thai politics is as ridiculous as Man City fans acting outraged their club is involved in Saudi politics.

Man City owned by the Royal family of Abu Dhabi in the UAE, nothing to do with Saudi Arabia.