Thai Military Support

[rugbyblue]

Maybe a bit of a left field view but this could be quite dangerous.  Most nations/groups will have the odd extremist members/hangers on.  To publicly side with thailand could make us a target in some extremists eyes (how many cambodian extremists there are, i dont know, granted).  But seems rather irresponsible when they would know when 30,000 people are gathering every other week. 

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, rugbyblue said:

Maybe a bit of a left field view but this could be quite dangerous.  Most nations/groups will have the odd extremist members/hangers on.  To publicly side with thailand could make us a target in some extremists eyes (how many cambodian extremists there are, i dont know, granted).  But seems rather irresponsible when they would know when 30,000 people are gathering every other week. 

 

Erm, think you're safe from Cambodian terror attacks tbh mate. 

 

[sylofox]

4 hours ago, Golden Fox said:

Frankly, they own the club and can do what they like with it to a large extent. 

 

This was a friendly match, outside of the EFL or Premier League. 

 

It didn't actually hurt anyone or offend anyone. As much as people are feeling outrage on here, its not because anyone understands the situation closely enough to believe the messaging is false. (I get the point about not allowing other messages, but as I say, it's their club) 

 

I know bashing Top and KP is the order of the day, and most of footballing decisions over the past few years have been shambolic, but there is a war going on in their country and they feel strongly about it, and they have tried to help do something about it, and I just don't see it as a big deal. 

It was broadcast live so the EFL have every right to sanction us if it's breaking rules.

 

Besides that it's our club name our City.

 

They can fvck off using us for political gain back home.

 

Sooner the little cvnt fvcks off the better.

[PaulW]

Can we ask the Club who suggested this be shown, and who sanctioned it as being acceptable?

Edited 4 August 2025 by PaulW

[BenTheFox]

11 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

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? 

I certainly would, yes. 

[OntarioFox]

Should be booing this shit when it comes up. They've kept it intentionally vague so that those not clued-in don't know what it's about.

 

Imagine the optics for King Power if the crowd are doing that, maybe with a cheeky song to accompany it, on live TV

Edited 4 August 2025 by OntarioFox

[SemperEadem]

12 minutes ago, PaulW said:

Can we ask the Club who suggested this be shown, and who sanctioned it as being acceptable?

Please go for it and ask the question.

[brucey]

19 minutes ago, rugbyblue said:

Maybe a bit of a left field view but this could be quite dangerous.  Most nations/groups will have the odd extremist members/hangers on.  To publicly side with thailand could make us a target in some extremists eyes (how many cambodian extremists there are, i dont know, granted).  But seems rather irresponsible when they would know when 30,000 people are gathering every other week. 

This would be the best angle to go for if anyone is sending in a complaint to the club. Moral objections against political displays can be brushed off as easily as those against gambling sponsors. But putting fans' health and safety at risk can't be brushed off as easily. 

[Kitchandro]

3 hours ago, Golden Fox said:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

It’s about power imbalance though.

 

If one person makes a political statement, that’s expression of free speech. If a group of individuals agree on something and decide to make a group statement, that’s the same.

 

This is a powerful company, ran by billionaires, using a football club as a platform to support a state (not a cause or opinion, a state) that we don’t even live in without the consent or endorsement of the fans. We as a club are now associated with this, they have used us a way of spreading a message that we may or may not agree with. The fact that it’s related to the military actions of a state has all sorts of moral complications, especially as we have impressionable kids going to games and following them on social media.

 

I’ve also got a problem with the phrase ‘it’s their club’. If that’s your attitude you can’t complain if we end up like Sheffield Wednesday, or support the Russian government or whatever. They have a responsibility that we are supposed to be holding them to.

[BenTheFox]

7 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

It’s about power imbalance though.

 

If one person makes a political statement, that’s expression of free speech. If a group of individuals agree on something and decide to make a group statement, that’s the same.

 

This is a powerful company, ran by billionaires, using a football club as a platform to support a state (not a cause or opinion, a state) that we don’t even live in without the consent or endorsement of the fans. We as a club are now associated with this, they have used us a way of spreading a message that we may or may not agree with. The fact that it’s related to the military actions of a state has all sorts of moral complications, especially as we have impressionable kids going to games and following them on social media.

 

I’ve also got a problem with the phrase ‘it’s their club’. If that’s your attitude you can’t complain if we end up like Sheffield Wednesday, or support the Russian government or whatever. They have a responsibility that we are supposed to be holding them to.

Excellent post. Hits the nail right on the head.

[Fox92]

It's always been a joke. Remember the King Of Thialand nonsense on screens after he died. 

[mozartfox]

We should all pray for a happy ending.  

[OntarioFox]

Might be worth complaining to the FA / local MPs?

 

I doubt they'll do anything but, even if nothing disciplinary comes of it, if the FA ends up having to put out a statement it will be incredibly damaging for KP's image and face back home.

 

And yes, it's a completely valid line of reasoning to suggest that this sort of thing serves to inflame tensions and potentially makes match going fans targets for retaliation. It's incredibly irresponsible, even if I can count the number of Cambodians I've met in my life on one hand and still have digits left to pick my nose.

Edited 4 August 2025 by OntarioFox

[Bayfox]

14 hours ago, ACF said:

#TruthfromSeagrave

Truth is.

 

No one uses the golf course and they play a lot of water polo.

[LCFCJohn]

15 minutes ago, OntarioFox said:

Might be worth complaining to the FA / local MPs?

 

I doubt they'll do anything but, even if nothing disciplinary comes of it, if the FA ends up having to put out a statement it will be incredibly damaging for KP's image and face back home.

 

And yes, it's a completely valid line of reasoning to suggest that this sort of thing serves to inflame tensions and potentially makes match going fans targets for retaliation. It's incredibly irresponsible, even if I can count the number of Cambodians I've met in my life on one hand and still have digits left to pick my nose.

I agree. And bring to the attention of national media like the BBC. 
 

We need to kick off about this as we don’t want our club connecting with this shit.

 

If it’s national initiatives such as I think there was when supporting Ukraine, fair enough. But this singles us out. And who actually gives a f*** what Thailand and Cambodia are doing! 

[Les-TA-Jon]

1 hour ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

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? 

 

1 hour ago, BenTheFox said:

I certainly would, yes. 

Right, so my point is, where was the public outcry when PL clubs started showing their support for Ukraine? 

[Footballwipe]

2 hours ago, MattFox said:

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

Always are and always will be, you have to remember that. Our fanbase will have a few donning their knee pads and wiping their chins after a session of KPFC-ing themselves out.

 

I'd love to know what would turn them but I doubt even Chansiri-levels of behaviour would turn them against the glorious overlords.

 

Oh please use us as a propaganda prop in your feud with a neighbouring nation 8000 miles away. Please.

[VLC86]

2 hours ago, MattFox said:

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

Not just going out to bat, I’ve heard they are gathering at the boarder with weapons and are ready to fight

[brucey]

1 hour ago, OntarioFox said:

And yes, it's a completely valid line of reasoning to suggest that this sort of thing serves to inflame tensions and potentially makes match going fans targets for retaliation. It's incredibly irresponsible, even if I can count the number of Cambodians I've met in my life on one hand and still have digits left to pick my nose.

It only takes one deranged lone wolf attacker to put fans, staff and players at genuine risk. 

 

If a pro-Russian individual in the UK wanted to attack someone displaying pro-Ukraine messaging, they would have tens of thousands of targets to choose from and we would be near the bottom of the list. 

 

If a pro-Cambodian individual in the UK wanted to do the same to bring attention to their cause, they now have just one obvious and easy target. 

 

@Foxes_Trust Will you be raising this with the club? 

 

Edited 4 August 2025 by brucey

[Golden Fox]

1 hour ago, Kitchandro said:

It’s about power imbalance though.

 

If one person makes a political statement, that’s expression of free speech. If a group of individuals agree on something and decide to make a group statement, that’s the same.

 

This is a powerful company, ran by billionaires, using a football club as a platform to support a state (not a cause or opinion, a state) that we don’t even live in without the consent or endorsement of the fans. We as a club are now associated with this, they have used us a way of spreading a message that we may or may not agree with. The fact that it’s related to the military actions of a state has all sorts of moral complications, especially as we have impressionable kids going to games and following them on social media.

 

I’ve also got a problem with the phrase ‘it’s their club’. If that’s your attitude you can’t complain if we end up like Sheffield Wednesday, or support the Russian government or whatever. They have a responsibility that we are supposed to be holding them to.

Good post, and I'm not disagreeing with any of this. (and I certainly wasn't going into bat for King Power on this).

 

I hate it that our club is owned by an individual (or family? or company?) from the other side of the world, who has financially mismanaged the club, that don't seem to listen to what we want as fans, that has changed our kit to always have that goldy colour, that gets involved in all the trophy presentations as though he had actually played, they ships over Thai influencers, and ships out our players out to the other side of the world to show them off, and yes, I also hate him using our club to promote his own political message as though speaking for the fans.

 

Football clubs are community assets and its crazy what is allowed to happen to them. One of my best mates is a Bury fan, and another from a Darlington family whose Dad got involved to resurrect the club following an owner (George Reynolds) who was a fraudster and ended up in jail and took the club down with him. I'm well aware of what poor ownership can do to a club, but also of how little power fans actually have to stop it happening.

 

But my points were 1) its not really hurting us having this shown, 2) I'm doubting whether they have actually broken any rules doing this in a friendly, 3) owners doing what they want is just a symptom of modern day sports.

 

I'd love to be holding our owners to a responsibility, but that responsibility is far bigger than this issue, and I don't know how we do get this message across - people showing outrage on a forum when they haven't really been impacted was coming across as hollow. Sheffield Wednesday are not in their current position because their fans had the attitude that Chansiri could do what he liked, but because he has ignored them and done it anyway. Now, if the club has back-tracked on K-Bet as a sponsor due to the work of people on here, and the messages against it, then maybe we do have more power than I think, and if the Football Regulator actually comes in and is fit for purpose, then I'd welcome this as part of their remit, as it ties into fan engagement. But until we start seeing traction on any of that, I'll remain cynical about what we as fans can do if we don't like the way the owner is acting.

[ramboacdc]

3 hours ago, PaulW said:

Can we ask the Club who suggested this be shown, and who sanctioned it as being acceptable?

 

2 hours ago, Fox92 said:

It's always been a joke. Remember the King Of Thialand nonsense on screens after he died. 

Thailand has some of the toughest laws in the world around what can and cant be said about the royal family. People are still imprisoned for decades for disrespect, which is open to interpretation. It's why when we won the league, that bloke was holding up a massive picture of the king, as not doing it could be seen as disrespecting the royal family. 

King Power have to keep the Thai's onside, and a weaponised law could be used to cause more issues for something already in trouble. Add on that they don't know who may be in charge as this Cambodia stuff may cause a 3rd coup in 20 years, they are covering all bases.

Is it right? God no. 

It will vanish when we start in the Championship due to the rules. If it doesn't, expect a lot of heat from the sports media in this country.  

[Wymsey]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Erm, think you're safe from Cambodian terror attacks tbh mate. 

 

It only takes one idiot ('lone wolf') to strike, though - plenty of such attacks have obviously happened in America, and also here with the Southport kid last year out of the blue, for example.

Edited 4 August 2025 by Wymsey

[Guest Bilo]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Erm, think you're safe from Cambodian terror attacks tbh mate. 

 

Provided Pukka expedite the Pol Pot Hot Pot Pie.

[Tommy G]

Is top being called up for national service?

[OntarioFox]

Thailand is the 'big guy' both in terms of military prowess and it's activities. This all came about because Cambodia got given some holy sites on the borders back in the 60s, and Thailand wants them. They're culturally relevant to both nations but they just happened to fall in Cambodia when the border was drawn.

 

I guess from a moral standpoint it's a grey area, but from a purely political/military one it's just a dick-waving contest. The only real surprise is that Thailand hasn't used its massive advantage in tech and personnel to blunt force the whole thing. Their army is 3-4x the size of Cambodia's depending on which source you read.

 

Cambodia could bite the bullet and cede the territory to end this, but why should they? It's sacred to them as well. The cynical view is that both governments want the distraction for their populations, a bit like how you'll get Argentina tubthumping about the Falklands every time their economy shits the bed. And it's totally on brand for KPFC to throw a doggy-bone to the government back home, like they did with the King there. It's pretty pathetic but not surprising at all.

 

The fact I'm sat here commenting on geopolitics instead of the upcoming start of the new season sums up the absolute fever dream that is KPFC. Sick of it.