Thai Military Support

[Guest Bilo]

3 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Is top being called up for national service?

Bangkok would be New Phonm Penh within a fortnight. 

[CosbehFox]

Looks like one of Top's mates arranged a similar display in Times Square a couple of days ago. 

[Lambert09]

4 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

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

 

I found the Cambodian terror suspect 

[Dan]

Shows you where their priorities lie - if it wasn't already obvious.

[Gamble92]

1 hour ago, Dan said:

Shows you where their priorities lie - if it wasn't already obvious.

Think we realised when they were holding up a big picture of the Thai King, and holding the Premier League like Top had won it from one of his Polo matches. 

 

Least we got a free donut though. 

[justfoxes]

22 hours ago, Craig said:

I did find it incredibly ironic given how difficult it is for us to get the truth from Thailand...

Or even the truth from the KP Stadium !

[Golden Fox]

1 hour ago, Dan said:

Shows you where their priorities lie - if it wasn't already obvious.

It doesn't show me that at all.

 

The club does have more than 1 employee. Its not like they had to prioritise between football decisions (selling Coady), big commercial decisions (launching the kit despite not having a sponsor) and a putting a message on an advertising board. 

[Claudio Fannieri]

Yet another poor and ill thought out decision from the ownership, Top is up there with Frank Sinclair and Wout Faes in terms of his ability in scoring own goals. 

[ian__marshall]

I'm truly disgusted that the club is being used for such political propaganda purposes. 

 

What concerns me is the insights into the internal structures within the club. Rightly or wrongly Top naturally will be supportive of his homeland and whether any of us agree or disagree he is entitled to hold such views on a personal level.

 

However, where is the corporate governance here? He may be the owner but surely there are policies, SOPs, and structures governing; a) any person within said organisation using the entity for channeling personal views, and b) any employee actually undertaking action related to directives from one individual which could bring the organisation into disrepute. 

 

Top may be the owner (and be deemed to hold the most senior position within the organisation), but across the many multinational organisations I've worked within, if ever the CEO instructed an individual to align the company with a political stance, someone would intervene and prevent it from happening, whether it be the legal team, corporate governance, another director, or even one of the many jobsworth types that every organisation has within their ranks. 

 

Let's be honest, Top hasn't jumped onto Photoshop himself, drafted these banners to be pixel perfect for both the scoreboard and advertising boards. Clearly this has been undertaken by someone on the payroll which suggests to me that there has been a serious failure in terms of our governance processes, or more worryingly those responsible for overseeing such governance have either intentionally turned a blind eye or been forced into doing so. Either way it is very concerning and makes you wonder where the moral boundaries are for the club. 

 

 

Edited 4 August 2025 by ian__marshall

[Chrysalis]

On 03/08/2025 at 20:02, jayfox26 said:

What happened? 

Some reporters approached him for an interview, so military was called in to fend them off.

[Jordan]

3 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

Looks like one of Top's mates arranged a similar display in Times Square a couple of days ago. 

Awkward moments abound this Sunday when the New York Foxes show up to the Football Factory to see all the scarves have been taken down and replaced by #TruthFromThailand banners

[AjcW]

11 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

I'm truly disgusted that the club is being used for such political propaganda purposes. 

 

What concerns me is the insights into the internal structures within the club. Rightly or wrongly Top naturally will be supportive of his homeland and whether any of us agree or disagree he is entitled to hold such views on a personal level.

 

However, where is the corporate governance here? He may be the owner but surely there are policies, SOPs, and structures governing; a) any person within said organisation using the entity for channeling personal views, and b) any employee actually undertaking action related to directives from one individual which could bring the organisation into disrepute. 

 

Top may be the owner (and be deemed to hold the most senior position within the organisation), but across the many multinational organisations I've worked within, if ever the CEO instructed an individual to align the company with a political stance, someone would intervene and prevent it from happening, whether it be the legal team, corporate governance, another director, or even one of the many jobsworth types that every organisation has within their ranks. 

 

Let's be honest, Top hasn't jumped onto Photoshop himself, drafted these banners to be pixel perfect for both the scoreboard and advertising boards. Clearly this has been undertaken by someone on the payroll which suggests to me that there has been a serious failure in terms of our governance processes, or more worryingly those responsible for overseeing such governance have either intentionally turned a blind eye or been forced into doing so. Either way it is very concerning and makes you wonder where the moral boundaries are for the club. 

 

 

Pretty similar to my post earlier, problem is anyone senior has been richly rewarded to the point of no return, they will do anything he says and question nothing.

 

We have an entire department at this club (marketing), all of which in reasonably senior positions, made up of folk who have been here between 10 and 15 years, with zero previous experience in work/football, and zero previous experience in the job they undertake for us currently, qualifications or otherwise.

 

These people would be unemployed for MONTHS if they dared to leave. 

 

Our DOF is a glorified PE teacher

Our Comms Director scraped through a journalism degree

 

For some reason us winning the league also meant everyone off the pitch was a miracle maker too....

[BenTheFox]

1 hour ago, ian__marshall said:

I'm truly disgusted that the club is being used for such political propaganda purposes. 

 

What concerns me is the insights into the internal structures within the club. Rightly or wrongly Top naturally will be supportive of his homeland and whether any of us agree or disagree he is entitled to hold such views on a personal level.

 

However, where is the corporate governance here? He may be the owner but surely there are policies, SOPs, and structures governing; a) any person within said organisation using the entity for channeling personal views, and b) any employee actually undertaking action related to directives from one individual which could bring the organisation into disrepute. 

 

Top may be the owner (and be deemed to hold the most senior position within the organisation), but across the many multinational organisations I've worked within, if ever the CEO instructed an individual to align the company with a political stance, someone would intervene and prevent it from happening, whether it be the legal team, corporate governance, another director, or even one of the many jobsworth types that every organisation has within their ranks. 

 

Let's be honest, Top hasn't jumped onto Photoshop himself, drafted these banners to be pixel perfect for both the scoreboard and advertising boards. Clearly this has been undertaken by someone on the payroll which suggests to me that there has been a serious failure in terms of our governance processes, or more worryingly those responsible for overseeing such governance have either intentionally turned a blind eye or been forced into doing so. Either way it is very concerning and makes you wonder where the moral boundaries are for the club. 

 

 

In America, wouldn't this be covered under the constitution? Businesses in America literally have human rights, even though Donald Trump is currently riding roughshod over the constitution. 

[ACF]

To take this a step further

 

King Power struggling to pay the bills to government owned Airports of Thailand, and at risk of the Duty Free monopoly being stripped from them.

 

More and more articles appeared criticising KP, which has been incredibly rare, talking about the potential corruption involved as the business was being developed.

 

They’ve then hired the former AOT chief, someone trusted to keep things moving and safe.

 

I would say this ‘campaign’ from Top is about trying to get back in the governments good books, providing a vehicle for their propaganda that they would lose in event of KP going bust. 

[BenTheFox]

It's just so disappointing because I saw encouraging signs on the pitch yesterday and I think the manager has come across very well so far, and I'm left feeling annoyed about this. 

[Golden Fox]

1 hour ago, ian__marshall said:

I'm truly disgusted that the club is being used for such political propaganda purposes. 

 

What concerns me is the insights into the internal structures within the club. Rightly or wrongly Top naturally will be supportive of his homeland and whether any of us agree or disagree he is entitled to hold such views on a personal level.

 

However, where is the corporate governance here? He may be the owner but surely there are policies, SOPs, and structures governing; a) any person within said organisation using the entity for channeling personal views, and b) any employee actually undertaking action related to directives from one individual which could bring the organisation into disrepute. 

 

Top may be the owner (and be deemed to hold the most senior position within the organisation), but across the many multinational organisations I've worked within, if ever the CEO instructed an individual to align the company with a political stance, someone would intervene and prevent it from happening, whether it be the legal team, corporate governance, another director, or even one of the many jobsworth types that every organisation has within their ranks. 

 

Let's be honest, Top hasn't jumped onto Photoshop himself, drafted these banners to be pixel perfect for both the scoreboard and advertising boards. Clearly this has been undertaken by someone on the payroll which suggests to me that there has been a serious failure in terms of our governance processes, or more worryingly those responsible for overseeing such governance have either intentionally turned a blind eye or been forced into doing so. Either way it is very concerning and makes you wonder where the moral boundaries are for the club. 

 

 

Thank you for putting some of the concerns around this succinctly.

 

I too have worked in multinational organisations and seen what governance structures should look like - my previous role was in a FTSE 100 company, but I moved 4 years ago to a reasonable sized UK only company (c£300m turnover, 800 employees) which is around 50% bigger than Leicester CIty (£100m-£200m depending on the league, 500 employees). This current company is owned 100% by one person. He is called "Mr Chairman" by everyone, and if he wants the company to do something, it will do it. Almost all senior management have been with the company years (I am still seen as the new to the firm after 4 years!) and everyone understands the lay of the land. I was shocked in my first meeting he came to, where senior directors in my office sat there like naughty schoolboys barely able to look him in the eye. But the point is, that for all the governance structures that would be in place in other companies of this size, it is his company and his decision is final. To be fair, he has built the company to where it is today, and does things the right way.

 

I can see a lot of parallels with Leicester City, and as a smaller company, the control from the top is likely greater still. I can picture a company where if the chairman wants something to be done, then it is done, and there is very limited governance or opportunity to push back. The most senior people have been there years so are embedded in the culture and have no incentive to change it. (The K Bet debacle looks to have his fingerprints on it and nobody stopping him.)

 

So yes, I am extremely concerned with the direction the club is heading in, and what moral boundaries there are, and I hope that as Top faces more challenges (around King Power's troubles, Leicester relegations, PSR failures, K Bet) he learns from them, or seeks guidance from someone more experienced to help guide him.

 

So I don't mean to be defending the messaging at the game: I watched the game and simply didn't notice, and looking at the match thread, it didn't seem to stop anyone else's enjoyment. But it is not a case of this event making me question the internal governance. I just had so little faith in it to begin with, this message was just a shrug of the shoulders as one more thing to add to the list. And small beer compared to how badly we seem to be run compared to clubs like Brighton, Bournemouth and Brentford and the fact we don't even seem to recognise that as a club or want to do anything about it. I just hope we luck out again with a good manager in Marti, and get back to enjoying the football,

[CloudFox]

I'm curious: For those who went, was there much chat about these ads in the stands? I'm guessing probably not, but you'd have thought even some of our regular lot would be at least confused by it.

[Wymsey]

Reckon they'll promote it in Sunday's match day magazine.

[Sly]

5 hours ago, CloudFox said:

I'm curious: For those who went, was there much chat about these ads in the stands? I'm guessing probably not, but you'd have thought even some of our regular lot would be at least confused by it.

I guess because it’s ambiguous, most people likely thought it was some sort of Thailand tourism advert. It likely went over the heads of 80% of people within the stadium.
 

Another portion of people won’t even care what’s going on, or as I think it got alluded to somewhere else, that generally people don’t have the capacity to appreciate conflicts outside of what the media portray (Gaze, Israel, Ukraine)
 

Bit of education for anyone that is semi interested.

 

Like so many wars, it started rooted in religion, around a temple built in the 9th century I believe. The Preah Vihear temple. Borders and ownership have shifted for centuries as various empires etc claimed it, depending who was war mongering within the region at the time.

 

The French undertook colonial mapping of the region in 1907 and draw the temple within Cambodias border. As the temple is significant to Thailand as well as Cambodia, they dispute this.

 

In 1954, as the French left Cambodia, Thailand military went and occupied the temple.

 

In 1963, the International Court of Justice ruled the temple belonged to Cambodia. Thailand didn’t take it well but withdrew troops. Just the temple though and not the are around it, leaving some ambiguity.

 

The 1980s saw the Cambodian civil war, which was between Khmer Rouge and a Vietnamese-backed government. Thailand hosted Khmer Rouge camps along the border with US / Chinese support.

 

1991ish, saw the Paris Peace Agreements and Cambodian elections, which actually helped the Thailand / Cambodian relationships improve a little. 
 

In 2003, false reports that Thai actress claimed a temple called Angkor Wat (if you don’t know it, think Stone Henge of the area) belonged to Thailand. It’s in Cambodia so massive riots kicked off.

 

Sometime in 2008 UNESCO declared Preah Vihear temple a world heritage site, Thailand strongly opposes and it kicks off for the next three years with tensions running high and 100,000 being displaced and 28 people losing their lives.

 

In 2013, the International Court of Justice declares all of the surrounding area of said temple belongs to Cambodia as well. Thailand is annoyed but “legally accepts” the situation. They are however internal tensions from Royalist and Nationalist groups to oppose it.

 

Sometime in July 2025, a phone call between the Thai PM, Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Cambodian strongman Hun Sen is leaked, which triggers outrage, as the Cambodian media portrayed Thailand as manipulative. Thai opposition and military circles accused the PM of compromising national security.

 

After five days of having a pop at each other,

Malaysia brokered a ceasefire with help from China and the US. 
 

 

…….

 

After typing all of that, I still don’t agree with our football club (Top might own it, it isn’t his though) being a bloody megaphone to push the Thailand propaganda and version of their version of events / narrative.  
 

We’ve constantly been used for geopolitical messaging about Thailand. King Power have basically been blessed by the Thai royal family for  loyalty and we’ve constantly been used a soft messaging service to project propaganda to the world. 
 

We are to Thailand, what PSG (Qatar), Newcastle (Saudi Arabia) and Manchester City (UAE) are to those countries. We are, at times a sports washing exercise.

We’ve obviously not got the historical financial clout of the other three, so have repeatedly tried to do dodgy stuff to circumvent PSR to keep us within the Premier League, so they have a larger audience to project to. It’s crippled us though. This is why we’ve overspent etc, we’ve tried to buy ownership to the club and flunked. 
 

If King Power were to fall over due to not supporting this though back at home, we’d be in worlds of pain.
 

They’re already on rocky ground as some of the stuff that got brushed under the carpet previously like the monopoly claims or claims of corruption, won’t go away so easily if they fall out with whichever regime

is in charge of Thailand. 
 

My opinion is, If you scratch the surface, they aren’t really that interested in the football club. They’ve tried to enough for us to get by. They struck lucky with success in the Premier League and FA Cup. PSR became a convenient excuse for us not to spend and they just want us to be amongst those top 20 clubs so they can promote soft messages about Thailand, so they maintain favour back at home for King Power. 

 

I COME BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POST THOUGH.
 

Politics should have no place in football.

[Sly]

5 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Reckon they'll promote it in Sunday's match day magazine.

Does that break any rules though? 

[SK3Blue]

7 hours ago, CloudFox said:

I'm curious: For those who went, was there much chat about these ads in the stands? I'm guessing probably not, but you'd have thought even some of our regular lot would be at least confused by it.

Very much doubt it, the only time I’ve ever took notice of the big screens was Vardy’s farewell video. 
 

Im sure the Coach 1 lot applauded it. They’ll be lining up for signed photos of Rudkin next . 

[Globalfox]

20 hours ago, PaulW said:

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

Why ask the club staff they are employees. The answer is simple Top gave instructions to do it end of story. And it most certainly was not a suggestion to do it but an instruction. A Thai national being patriotic is not really surprising. I bet 90% of people never noticed, nor checked it out or like me even care. I support me political or social interference in sport but that ship sailed a long time ago. Ignore all of this it’s football we want.

[CloudFox]

3 hours ago, Sly said:

I guess because it’s ambiguous, most people likely thought it was some sort of Thailand tourism advert. It likely went over the heads of 80% of people within the stadium.
 

Another portion of people won’t even care what’s going on, or as I think it got alluded to somewhere else, that generally people don’t have the capacity to appreciate conflicts outside of what the media portray (Gaze, Israel, Ukraine)
 

Bit of education for anyone that is semi interested.

 

Like so many wars, it started rooted in religion, around a temple built in the 9th century I believe. The Preah Vihear temple. Borders and ownership have shifted for centuries as various empires etc claimed it, depending who was war mongering within the region at the time.

 

The French undertook colonial mapping of the region in 1907 and draw the temple within Cambodias border. As the temple is significant to Thailand as well as Cambodia, they dispute this.

 

In 1954, as the French left Cambodia, Thailand military went and occupied the temple.

 

In 1963, the International Court of Justice ruled the temple belonged to Cambodia. Thailand didn’t take it well but withdrew troops. Just the temple though and not the are around it, leaving some ambiguity.

 

The 1980s saw the Cambodian civil war, which was between Khmer Rouge and a Vietnamese-backed government. Thailand hosted Khmer Rouge camps along the border with US / Chinese support.

 

1991ish, saw the Paris Peace Agreements and Cambodian elections, which actually helped the Thailand / Cambodian relationships improve a little. 
 

In 2003, false reports that Thai actress claimed a temple called Angkor Wat (if you don’t know it, think Stone Henge of the area) belonged to Thailand. It’s in Cambodia so massive riots kicked off.

 

Sometime in 2008 UNESCO declared Preah Vihear temple a world heritage site, Thailand strongly opposes and it kicks off for the next three years with tensions running high and 100,000 being displaced and 28 people losing their lives.

 

In 2013, the International Court of Justice declares all of the surrounding area of said temple belongs to Cambodia as well. Thailand is annoyed but “legally accepts” the situation. They are however internal tensions from Royalist and Nationalist groups to oppose it.

 

Sometime in July 2025, a phone call between the Thai PM, Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Cambodian strongman Hun Sen is leaked, which triggers outrage, as the Cambodian media portrayed Thailand as manipulative. Thai opposition and military circles accused the PM of compromising national security.

 

After five days of having a pop at each other,

Malaysia brokered a ceasefire with help from China and the US. 
 

 

…….

 

After typing all of that, I still don’t agree with our football club (Top might own it, it isn’t his though) being a bloody megaphone to push the Thailand propaganda and version of their version of events / narrative.  
 

We’ve constantly been used for geopolitical messaging about Thailand. King Power have basically been blessed by the Thai royal family for  loyalty and we’ve constantly been used a soft messaging service to project propaganda to the world. 
 

We are to Thailand, what PSG (Qatar), Newcastle (Saudi Arabia) and Manchester City (UAE) are to those countries. We are, at times a sports washing exercise.

We’ve obviously not got the historical financial clout of the other three, so have repeatedly tried to do dodgy stuff to circumvent PSR to keep us within the Premier League, so they have a larger audience to project to. It’s crippled us though. This is why we’ve overspent etc, we’ve tried to buy ownership to the club and flunked. 
 

If King Power were to fall over due to not supporting this though back at home, we’d be in worlds of pain.
 

They’re already on rocky ground as some of the stuff that got brushed under the carpet previously like the monopoly claims or claims of corruption, won’t go away so easily if they fall out with whichever regime

is in charge of Thailand. 
 

My opinion is, If you scratch the surface, they aren’t really that interested in the football club. They’ve tried to enough for us to get by. They struck lucky with success in the Premier League and FA Cup. PSR became a convenient excuse for us not to spend and they just want us to be amongst those top 20 clubs so they can promote soft messages about Thailand, so they maintain favour back at home for King Power. 

 

I COME BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POST THOUGH.
 

Politics should have no place in football.

Thanks @Sly, this is incredibly insightful. I had no idea so much of that was going on, even within the tenure of King Power's ownership of us. It's definitely being done to curry favour with those in charge in Thailand then.

 

Likewise, I think it's unacceptable we're being used as a megaphone for a foreign entity and arguably political party (e.g. the nationalists/royalists likely pushing that agenda so hard). It really does put into perspective King Power's motives.

[AjcW]

Any plans for a question on this @Foxes_Trust??

[Voll Blau]

36 minutes ago, Globalfox said:

Why ask the club staff they are employees. The answer is simple Top gave instructions to do it end of story. And it most certainly was not a suggestion to do it but an instruction. A Thai national being patriotic is not really surprising. I bet 90% of people never noticed, nor checked it out or like me even care. I support me political or social interference in sport but that ship sailed a long time ago. Ignore all of this it’s football we want.

"Ignore all of this it's football we want."