Thai Military Support

[mozartfox]

#MuckFromRudkin should be displayed.

[Golden Fox]

1 hour ago, Stuntman_Mike said:

Have you read most of this thread? 

Yes - and having read most of it, I was struggling to see exactly why so many people are getting angry over it, as I haven't read much about how anyone has been negatively impacted by this. As I said, I understand the point about them not allowing fan's messages: not supporting messages on mental health, but then promoting this, but that's a handful of people that rightfully feel aggrieved.

 

57 minutes ago, MattFox said:

Would you be saying the same if KP were Russian and they stuck some Russian flags on the big screen

Of course I wouldn't be saying the same. The Russian conflict is in Europe and our government has taken a clear position, supplying weapons, imposing sanctions etc.

 

11 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

If this involved the players and their 'equipment', it's pretty clear on this

But it doesn't involve the players of their equipment. This messaging was outside the field of play. It is a dangerous place to start asking players to  wear political messages (James McClean and the poppy, the NHL just banning any messages on pre-game warm up jerseys to avoid player's getting caught about making a decision between their belief system and what they are being asked to wear), so again, if this message was in place of the sponsor, it would be a very different discussion.

 

I'm not saying I like a lot of this, but I also follow a lot of US sports, and even more so over there, owners buy teams, they are their property and they do what they like with them. This is part and parcel of modern sport.

[fox_up_north]

That is not on, at all. By all means allow the Thai tourism board to buy advertising space (presumably at discount rates but whatever) but not this. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

13 hours ago, Bilo said:

A very slippery slope for an English football club to explicitly be used as an advertising hoarding for a foreign state's propaganda during a conflict.

 

Make no mistake, this goes even further than PIF using Newcastle as a sportswashing vehicle for the Saudi regime. Are we going to have other foreign owners seeing this as a green light to promote their nation's narrative? Or even those sympathetic to other nations doing the same thing? Very, very bad precedent.

 

 

 

I can't say I know the specific details of the Thailand-Cambodia border dispute/conflict (I only just read about it this morning). But isn't Cambodia the aggressor? 

 

Didn't lots of PL / EFL clubs show support for Ukraine when they got invaded by Russia? What's the difference? (I'm not saying there is no difference, I'm philosophically asking). 

[CosbehFox]

46 minutes ago, Golden Fox said:

 

 

But it doesn't involve the players of their equipment. This messaging was outside the field of play. It is a dangerous place to start asking players to  wear political messages (James McClean and the poppy, the NHL just banning any messages on pre-game warm up jerseys to avoid player's getting caught about making a decision between their belief system and what they are being asked to wear), so again, if this message was in place of the sponsor, it would be a very different discussion.

 

Lots of examples where clubs have punished for messaging outside the field of play. Celtic, Barcelona and the Israeli clubs spring to mind. 

 

As @LCFCJohn has already not noted, it breaches Rule E3 of the FA rules. Article 44 within UEFA's rules cover it too. 

Edited 4 August 2025 by CosbehFox

[jayfox26]

I think the reason people are having an issue with this is because so many are sick do death of Top and his incompetent running of the club so in turn, they are also sick of having everything to do with Thailand rammed down their throats. If the club was doing well then this wouldn't be a thing but we aren't, so I totally get why people are getting annoyed by the whole Thailand bollocks. If the club was getting money for it then it would be a different story but that's highly unlikely 

[davieG]

4 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

Really disappointing behaviour again. Hopefully the club gets charged. I imagine they might get away with it due to it being a friendly but definitely against FA and league rules.

 

 

Relevant Rules & Regulations

1. FA Rules – Rule E3

   • Prohibits “discriminatory” or “inappropriate” conduct, including political statements that might bring the game into disrepute.

2. Premier League Handbook (or EFL equivalent)

   • Contains clauses that prohibit political, offensive, or controversial content from being displayed via official club media, including perimeter boards, in-stadium screens, or matchday programmes.

   • Clubs must seek prior approval for content on advertising boards (especially LED perimeter boards and jumbotrons).

 

This even mentions military messaging;

 

 

What Counts as “Political Messaging”?

It can include:

• Flags or slogans related to conflicts, governments, or independence movements.

• Advertisements promoting government programs, military campaigns, or state-backed narratives.

• Messaging that may endorse or oppose specific legislation, referenda, or political parties.

 

Hopefully it is picked up and they get charged and fined.

 

If there is any fine it should be from the personal banks of the Thai owners not the club.

[Spanner73]

11 hours ago, C.J said:

That's got to be the next UFS banner!

Next Sunday could turn into an anti-thai owners demo! Hopefully it rolls on from last season as nothing has changed.......

Get on it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Bilo]

17 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I can't say I know the specific details of the Thailand-Cambodia border dispute/conflict (I only just read about it this morning). But isn't Cambodia the aggressor? 

 

Didn't lots of PL / EFL clubs show support for Ukraine when they got invaded by Russia? What's the difference? (I'm not saying there is no difference, I'm philosophically asking). 

It depends on who you ask and it's far from clear cut, as conflicts seldom are. Cambodians are a marginalised and ill-treated minority in Thailand while both nations have certainly been engaging in nationalist dick waving for over a century. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/02/online-hate-and-rising-vitriol-deep-divisions-amid-shaky-peace-between-thailand-and-cambodia

 

In terms of Russia and Ukraine, it was far more obvious who the aggressor was and both our government and its allies took a clear position from the outset. Russia is a fascist imperial pretender that invaded a sovereign nation's territory in clear violation of international law.

 

 

[SemperEadem]

25 minutes ago, jayfox26 said:

I think the reason people are having an issue with this is because so many are sick do death of Top and his incompetent running of the club so in turn, they are also sick of having everything to do with Thailand rammed down their throats. If the club was doing well then this wouldn't be a thing but we aren't, so I totally get why people are getting annoyed by the whole Thailand bollocks. If the club was getting money for it then it would be a different story but that's highly unlikely 

Still wouldn't be for me. 

[Guest RYM]

It’s mad really that if they have the space they could’ve promoted some of the community projects that the Clubs Trust work on, those that directly affect the supporters and the communities around us.

 

Instead they chose this, to use the club as a vehicle to win a few points back home.

 

We are talking about the club breaching FA regulations when we could’ve been talking about the great work the Community Trust do.

 

Such a weird club.

Edited 4 August 2025 by RYM

[Guest Bilo]

33 minutes ago, jayfox26 said:

I think the reason people are having an issue with this is because so many are sick do death of Top and his incompetent running of the club so in turn, they are also sick of having everything to do with Thailand rammed down their throats. If the club was doing well then this wouldn't be a thing but we aren't, so I totally get why people are getting annoyed by the whole Thailand bollocks. If the club was getting money for it then it would be a different story but that's highly unlikely 

Would it? Whether the club's owners are voluntary propagandists or paid propagandists, they're still shilling for the Thai military. 

[Golden Fox]

25 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Lots of examples where clubs have punished for messaging outside the field of play. Celtic, Barcelona and the Israeli clubs spring to mind. 

 

As @LCFCJohn has already not noted, it breaches Rule E3 of the FA rules. Article 44 within UEFA's rules cover it too. 

I've found the exact wording of the FA rule E3:

E3.1 A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent
conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
E3.2 A breach of Rule E3.1 is an “Aggravated Breach” where it includes a reference, whether express or implied, to any one or more of the following :- ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation or disability.

 

There is nothing here that directly talks about political messaging. I think its a reach to say that voicing support in this manner bring the game into disrepute.

 

UEFA's article 44 is for "regulations governing a competition to be played under the auspices of UEFA." This was a friendly and not a UEFA organised competition, so it does not apply.

 

I think we owe the club's legal department some credit. They have Nick De Marco on speed-dial, so I'd have expected them to have understood the rules and regulations thoroughly before putting the message out so blatantly. If I'm wrong and they are punished, then it will be pretty shocking, but I think its more likely than not that they have done their diligence. Again though, its strange to see so many of our supporters so keen to see the club penalised.

[daddylonglegs]

It epitomises where they're at at the moment. 

They're just getting it all so horribly wrong. And have been for years now. 

 

[FOTS]

I just can’t believe the #TruthFromThailand messaging was passed through the Fan Engagement Framework™️. The FAB would surely have been consulted if Leicester City is now officially siding with a nation in a conflict? Right?

Edited 4 August 2025 by FOTS

[MattFox]

Amazing that there’s people going out to bat for KP on this

[Richmondfox]

We can only support corporate sponsored and western government mandated empty platitudes and flag waving.  

[Xen]

55 minutes ago, jayfox26 said:

I think the reason people are having an issue with this is because so many are sick do death of Top and his incompetent running of the club so in turn, they are also sick of having everything to do with Thailand rammed down their throats. If the club was doing well then this wouldn't be a thing but we aren't, so I totally get why people are getting annoyed by the whole Thailand bollocks. If the club was getting money for it then it would be a different story but that's highly unlikely 

Even under Vichai, there was still a lot of pushback on here for anything gold on the kit, some of the forced Thai influence around the ground, support of the royal family etc etc.

 

Its not something new, its just escalating. And with explicit political/military support, its gone way past the threshold of a general annoyance to something that has no place in our (or any other) football club.

 

The issues people have with Top and the board are related - itd be foolish to say otherwise - but even looking at this in isolation its something that we should be aggrieved by and pushing back against.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

It's not a cult though.

[kingkisnorbo]

You can bet your bottom dollar many of those who are fine with this are the same ones who boo the knee on match days. 

[RoboFox]

29 minutes ago, MattFox said:

Amazing that there’s people going out to bat for KP on this

Not at all surprising. 

[CosbehFox]

48 minutes ago, Golden Fox said:

I've found the exact wording of the FA rule E3:

E3.1 A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent
conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
E3.2 A breach of Rule E3.1 is an “Aggravated Breach” where it includes a reference, whether express or implied, to any one or more of the following :- ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation or disability.

 

There is nothing here that directly talks about political messaging. I think its a reach to say that voicing support in this manner bring the game into disrepute.

 

UEFA's article 44 is for "regulations governing a competition to be played under the auspices of UEFA." This was a friendly and not a UEFA organised competition, so it does not apply.

 

I think we owe the club's legal department some credit. They have Nick De Marco on speed-dial, so I'd have expected them to have understood the rules and regulations thoroughly before putting the message out so blatantly. If I'm wrong and they are punished, then it will be pretty shocking, but I think its more likely than not that they have done their diligence. Again though, its strange to see so many of our supporters so keen to see the club penalised.

Yeah we are still charged on that score. De Marco just put it off. Just got a load of money out of us, still got relegated, still charged. 

[Gamble92]

Nothing surprises me anymore. Quite laughable that Top has made sure this gets displayed and no one has the balls to stand up to him and say how wrong it is. 

 

But like I said, nothing surprises me. Just a shame they aren't as transparent with the truth with all their dodgy sponsorship dealings or their internal reviews. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

1 hour ago, Bilo said:

It depends on who you ask and it's far from clear cut, as conflicts seldom are. Cambodians are a marginalised and ill-treated minority in Thailand while both nations have certainly been engaging in nationalist dick waving for over a century. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/02/online-hate-and-rising-vitriol-deep-divisions-amid-shaky-peace-between-thailand-and-cambodia

 

In terms of Russia and Ukraine, it was far more obvious who the aggressor was and both our government and its allies took a clear position from the outset. Russia is a fascist imperial pretender that invaded a sovereign nation's territory in clear violation of international law.

 

 

Right, so I guess what I'm saying is, what is the measure for what is acceptable political messaging at and during football matches?

 

Support for Ukraine = acceptable

Support for Thailand = unacceptable

 

Seemingly on the basis of Ukraine vs Russia being obvious who is the victim and who is the oppressor, whereas Thailand vs Cambodia is less clear. 

 

Which suggests that the measure of acceptability isn't the message itself but just whose side we agree with or not? Or who we can clearly side with or not? 

 

EDIT: imagine if Top was Ukrainian and he had used his position as owner to promote support for Ukraine all over the stadium and during matches - would we have the same complaints? 

Edited 4 August 2025 by Les-TA-Jon

[RoboFox]

It's Aiyawatt - and by extension, King Power - yet again using the football club to front their own personal PR campaign. 

 

I'm sure all of his powerful friends are very impressed. 

 

I wonder whether there will be any government-owned companies coming to favourable agreements with King Power in the near future?