Thaksinology: The Manchester Affair

What’s going on over at Manchester City Football Club. The Daily Mail recently headlined Taxi for Thaksin. The club’s owner Thaksin faces some judicial worries back home. If convicted, he may not pass the “Fit And Proper Persons Test” FAPPT any longer. The FAPPT means anyone convicted of a range of offences would not be permitted to become a director, or a shadow director, at a club.

What do the fans of Manchester City think of all of this. “Frank Sinatra” – easier to pronounce than Shinawatra – had arrived as a savior cum hero back in 2007. After years of neglect Man City Football Club suddenly was again somebody. With his money Thaksin brought along recognition, first success, respect.

We asked Thad Williamson, a political scientist and ardent Manchester City supporter living in the United States, where he teaches at the University of Richmond (Virgina) with a focus on social justice and leadership. Williamson has been operating the Thaksin Skeptic blog since July 2007, shortly after Thaksin bought City, as a way to investigate in depth the ethical and practical issues raised by his buying the club.

“My aim,” Williamson tells absolutely Bangkok.com, “was to find out as much as I could about Thaksin so I could assess the charges and allegations (particularly of human rights abuses) against him. In the process I’ve learned a lot about and become quite fascinated with Thai politics. So these days I regularly monitor not only City message boards, but also newspapers and blogs related to what’s going on in Thailand.”

“I also added,” says Williamson, “a unit discussing Thaksin to my university course on “Foundations of Leadership” as a case study; we looked at the ethics of Thaksin’s war on drugs. I’ve been disturbed by Thaksin’s involvement with Manchester City from day one, but it has been a very interesting experience becoming familiar (from afar) with Thai politics.”

Here we go:

Thaksin arrived as a hero in Manchester. What do fans think today?

There is much greater skepticism towards Thaksin since he sacked Sven Goran Eriksson. When Thaksin came in, most City fans were excited at the idea of an owner who could provide a lot of resources to refurbish the team. City had had a very poor campaign in 2006-07, failing to score a goal at home in the second half of the season which is unheard of for a Premiership side. When Thaksin came in, he brought along Sven who was by far the most accomplished manager the club had hired in a generation. Then a number of quality players suddenly appeared – especially Elano, Petrov, and Corluka – and the club got off to a great start to last season, including a victory over Manchester United. For all these reasons, most City fans were willing to overlook or rationalize the criticisms of Thaksin. The human rights abuses were described by these fans as “allegations,” and any and all criticisms of Thaksin were dismissed as sour grapes by an anti-democratic junta.

It’s important to recognize that not all City fans viewed Thaksin so positively. My blog has been skeptical from the very start, and I make no bones about the fact I would rather he not owned the club. There were others who had that view from the start as well, but that was a minority position until Sven was sacked. Now there are more fans who are openly skeptical; some fans are still ardent Thaksin supporters; and most City fans are probably somewhere in the middle, hoping it all works out for the best for the club.

We were wondering in Thailand how long it will take for the people of Manchester to realize Thaksin’s other faces. Do fans feel betrayed? Thaksin had assured everybody he’s facing made-up charges of some kangaroo justice.

I think a lot of City fans had, to the extent they paid attention to the issue at all, convinced themselves that once the junta was gone, all would be well, Thaksin would be off the hook, he’d get his money back, and he’d turn City into a European power. Certainly Thaksin cultivated those expectations with some big promises of success. With Pojaman’s conviction, anyone who is paying attention realizes that those promises are not likely to be fulfilled any time soon. So yes there is some disappointment, but I don’t think that many fans feel betrayed. They reckon that to this point at least the club is still stronger than when Thaksin came in.

Personally I always thought it was a bad idea for City to put itself in position where the club’s future would be contingent on the uncertainties of Thai politics.

What’s perhaps disturbing is that the most serious issue regarding Thaksin, his complicity in human rights abuses, has largely disappeared as a talking point. A year ago that was probably the most frequently discussed issue, especially after Human Rights Watch sent a brief to the Premier League saying Thaksin was a “human rights abuser of the worst kind.” Of course, the question of holding people accountable for the excesses of the 2003 War on Drugs appears to have fallen off the political radar in Thailand as well, as far as I can tell.

What about the rumors he wants to sell the club? Or will be forced to sell the club?

City have confirmed he is looking for investors. It has emerged in the past few weeks that Thaksin had to borrow money from the former owner, John Wardle, to meet payroll last season. Also, the big-name purchases of last year and this summer’s acquisition of Jo all were arranged so payments would be staggered over several years, saving the need to spend a lot of money up front. The issue of just how much money Thaksin has actually put into the club thus has emerged as a hotly debated issue among City supporters. With Thaksin’s assets frozen, clearly the money is not there to bankroll major spending, and there are rumors that City may have to sell one of its top players, Corluka, if it wants to buy another striker this summer.

What’s become very clear is that very few people in Manchester itself actually know what is going on in Thaksin’s head. He is running the club at a remote distance. One club official is quoted in the Manchester Evening News todsay as saying “Nothing surprises me any more.”

The fact that the possibility of Thaksin selling the club has even come up may mark the beginning of the end, but it’s too early to tell.

Is Thaksin afraid of going back to face the club and fans?

That’s hard to say. He hasn’t been to a game in England since Fulham last spring, and the two league games after that featured a lot of protests from fans against the sacking of Sven. I don’t think he would face public abuse from City fans if he suddenly popped up. But he wouldn’t get a royal welcome, either.

Do people still want him back? I mean, his money back?

I think through most of last season a significant number of City fans thought Thaksin was some kind of savior, and I think Thaksin enjoyed being regarded in that way.

At this point, however, I doubt very many City fans particularly want HIM back. What they want is the club to be in good shape. If that involves Thaksin somehow getting his money and being able to invest in the club, they will accept that. If it involves Thaksin selling to someone else better situated to steward the club, they’ll accept that too. What they won’t stand for is any sense that Thaksin is selling off the club’s assets by selling the better players. That hasn’t happened yet; if it does I expect City fans will get very upset.

Did any of these events change the impression people had of Thailand?

Sadly, probably no, except that a few people (like myself) pay much closer attention to Thailand than they ever did before. One sad thing about this is that several lifelong City fans who had firsthand familiarity with Thailand and Thaksin from having lived there have become very alienated from the club. These folks would go on the message boards and explain why they thought Thaksin was bad news, and would get personally attacked or labeled as anti-City. That’s very sad, and a couple of those people have told me they simply can’t support City while Thaksin is in charge, not just because they don’t like him but out of disgust with that segment of City fans that would not accept any criticism of their new hero.

The fact that people have not learned more about Thailand represents a failure of the British media. A couple of known national journalists who are City supporters have been critical of Thaksin from the beginning, and as events have unfolded the writers covering the team for the Manchester Evening News appear to have become more disaffected and critical. And certainly Sven’s sacking inspired a large wave of criticism. But while there have been a few limited efforts to explain the issues with Thaksin at no point to my knowledge has a paper launched a major, serious analysis of Thaksin, his background and record, and the complexities of Thai politics.

That failure has allowed the average City fan who doesn’t want his conscience bothered to say, well, this fellow was elected twice and he was kicked out by a junta and the rural poor like him, so isn’t he the good guy? That reasoning has a surface plausibility, and I actually don’t think it’s completely wrong either. Understanding the ways in which Thaksin undermined the possibility of genuine democracy in Thailand with a strong civil society and respect for individual rights requires a deeper inquiry. I tried to provide that on the blog, but that really should have been the journalists’ job. (To be fair, the BBC did some pieces early on that were much better than what was in the papers.) It’s a shame because there are some excellent English-speaking experts on Thai politics and history who could have been tapped into; for instance, the co-author of one of the main two scholarly books on Thaksin (Duncan McCargo) teaches at Leeds.

You read the forums and talk to the people? By now they may think, after all, he’s a criminal? Or is nobody disturbed by the background of Thaksin, how the former policeman became that rich and powerful?

Opinions are now sharply divided about Thaksin, and again, most people are somewhere in the middle. There is an element that has always insisted he is a thug not to be trusted (that’s been my basic view), and now an increasingly prominent element that think whether or not he’s a thug his owning the club is not a good thing long-term for City. And there is an element that defends his every move and all his past actions from the war on drugs to sacking Sven. The preponderance of fans are now somewhere in the middle and probably quite tired of the back and forth from the pro and anti-Thaksin factions. His presence has really divided City fans against one another which has been sad to witness, because City fans are traditionally proud of being the most loyal in the world, and being a City fan used to mean you had a shared sense of brotherhood with other fans no matter what you might think about anything else. That sense of fraternity has been strained, to say the least. I’ve certainly had some unpleasant comments directed my way. But to be fair, the majority of City fans I think recognize that there are legitimate grounds for differences of opinion.

And the saga of the firing of Eriksson is all but forgotten by now.

Not at all, in fact at one of the recent preseason friendlies his name was still being sung. The Sven sacking was a massive event in terms of shaking people’s confidence in Thaksin – the vast majority of City fans though that was an appalling decision. At the moment people are inclined to give Mark Hughes a chance and regard him as a reasonable replacement. But if the season doesn’t go well, City fans are going to get impatient faster. Beyond that, sacking Sven cost Thaksin a lot of goodwill with fans, since it seemed he really didn’t care at all what the fans, players, and people in and around the club on a day to day basis thought.

What should Thaksin do?

I would love for Thaksin to sell the club and turn his attention to his other investments and to golf. But to me the most important thing is that he no longer be a divisive and disruptive force in Thai politics, which he still obviously is. I could accept Thaksin owning City IF that meant he was and truly out of the Thai political scene. By taking Thaksin of your hands, City would be serving a greater good! What has happened instead is he’s tried to use City as a prop for his own political and legal purposes, which I find disgusting.

To be fair, it seems that Thaksin has hired a competent person in Garry Cook to be the acting executive of the club while Thaksin is away, and perhaps he has now enough affection for City that he won’t strip its assets or compromise its future for his own purposes if his financial and legal situation worsens.

How do you see the future of the club?

I don’t think the club can or will achieve serious success with Thaksin owning the club, simply because the track record indicates he won’t have enough patience to give a manager the time needed to really build a team and have them mature as a playing unit. And, for the time being at least he doesn’t have access to the kind of money needed to really compete with the largest clubs. And, most critically, If he is convicted by the Thai courts on any of the corruption charges, he may be required to divest the club under the Premier League’s “Fit and Proper Person” test.

I think the club would be much better off if Thaksin were not the owner, and if the club were not owned by someone who is a major political figure and who is facing serious legal troubles. That was a principal basis for my opposition to the takeover from the beginning, and I think those worries have been vindicated.

If Thaksin were to get out sooner rather than later, he might still retain a positive or mostly positive place in the minds of most City fans. City fans will point to the players he brought in, and credit him with raising the scale of ambition at City. He can quit now and still be ahead in most people’s minds. If he tries to hang on, the club struggles, and he can’t come up with the resources to strengthen the squad, or if he authorizes selling top players, or if he fires another manager prematurely, he’ll be viewed very negatively even among those fans now still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

My feelings about the time since Thaksin bought the club are very mixed. I’ve enjoyed seeing the new players and enjoyed Sven, but I’ve hated seeing the club turned into a political prop, I’ve hated the fact that most City fans have been willing to rationalize or ignore human rights charges against Thaksin, and I’ve hated the divisive effect his ownership has had on the communities of fans I participate in. But if the club can get past this period, the same fundamentals that made City an attractive proposition in the first place are still there: Strong fan base, excellent stadium, excellent youth training program, many quality young players. So the club’s future is and should be pretty bright, if it can disentangle itself from Thaksin and the complications he brings.




Sphere: Related Content

Related posts on absolutelyBangkok.com:

  1. Blue Diamond Affair Re-Revisited
  2. The Yellow-Green Party
  3. Of Rankings, Mediocrity & Quality Of Life
  4. Golfer Prayad’s From Nowhere To Riches
  5. Kraisak Choonhavan & The Wrath Of Vasan Sitthiket
  6. Red Propaganda
  7. Supinya Klangnarong, Graceful Voice Of Freedom

August 8, 2008 | Filed Under Business & Economics, Politics, Sports & Fun, The Interview 

Comments

5 Responses to “Thaksinology: The Manchester Affair”

  1. hobby on August 9th, 2008 7.05 am

    Nice interview – thanks.

    IMO, Thaksin needs to decide between City & Thai politics, instead of trying to use City to further his political goals.

    It’s a pity that taking City up the ladder does not seem to be a big enough goal to satisfy his ego.

    If he had concentrated on that goal, and had stayed out of Thai politics, I think he would have faced less opposition to him regaining control of most of the frozen funds (less a tax/fine of course, as a deterrent to others who try to have their cake and eat it all in future).

  2. Richard on August 9th, 2008 6.45 pm

    Thaksin has no interest in, or knowledge of, English football. Buying the club kept his name in the headlines in Thailand which suited him for awhile. Anyone with half an eye on world affairs could have seen that allowing Thaksin to buy the club in the first place was a bad move. Those who allowed it to happen should be hanging their heads in shame.

  3. BangkokDan on August 9th, 2008 11.07 pm

    Back then he wanted to buy Liverpool to divert attention – but that club at least turned out to be a number to big for him.

    But then again, already back then, at the “peak” of his power, remember that fortune teller predicting Thaksin will be a man with no land?

    He knew, we all knew. Thaksin was asking for all this, whatever the motives.

    BangkokDan

  4. Fonzi on August 10th, 2008 5.50 am

    I find the whole Man City-Thaksin story fascinating.

    I can’t quite figure out why he bought the club. He only cares about the game superficially.

    Most Thaksin haters think he bought it for propaganda purposes because of the election, but that just seems like a stupid political and business decision. Thaksin, with all his faults, doesn’t seem like a naive political operator or a bad businessman. PPP would have won the election without the Man City purchase.

    I think dumping Sven was a bad idea. Thaksin should have waited until the fans called for his head, which would have happened eventually if he didn’t produce within a reasonable time frame. Sven did a decent job though. He brought a team that was perennially in the cellar and made it competitive with the big boys.

    I think the simplest reason for Thaksin’s purchase of Man City is the most obvious one: He bought a toy for his spoiled son – and it was a creative way to launder his overseas money.

  5. Links to Articles Published in 2008 « Thad Williamson on August 23rd, 2008 9.43 am

    [...] Interview with Absolutely Bangkok Concerning Manchester City and Thaksin Shinawatra (August) [...]

Leave a Reply