Topic: Ambition Opportunity and Synergy - I'll take the Thai Road

[Armin]

Amidst all the fearful speculation, I think the positive aspect of the proposed Thai deal has been lost.  I think it's a wonderful opportunity and here's why. Note, allow me the caveats first! - we haven't seen the full details as yet but I'm cautiously optimistic about the Thai bid and wanted to explore the postives aspects.

The key word is 'Synergy'. Business Management types often use the term. Here is the Merriam definition:

1. The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.

2. Cooperative interaction among groups, especially among the acquired subsidiaries or merged parts of a corporation, that creates an enhanced combined effect.

I think there is a potential synergy at work here between LFC and Thailand. The more I think of this opportunity, the more I want the board - and the fans, to seize it.

Over the past couple of days I have seen Thailand and its regime portrayed in wholly inaccurate terms. Thailand is actually a great country. Easily the best run in the region and with a growing economy and sense of national pride. The Thais are great people, friendly, peaceful and good to do business with. The country is well run and relatively prosperous. They have developed rapidly and with the exception of the SE Asian economic crisis of a few years ago have enjoyed steadily rising incomes. This is not Myanmar or Indonesia under Sueharto.

There are human rights concerns, they are minor if viewed in the context of the region (that is not saying they are not significant). It is for each person to research the issue and decide for themselves. I won't tell anyone what to think but I personally have no moral objection to a linkup of this sort with the Thai sports ministry and private investors. I suspect that the furtherance of Human Rights issues in Thailand is directly related to the extent of interaction with the outside world and no condemnation or ostracising of a peaceful democratic and well run nation is likely to win the argument.

The Thai people are seriously mad for English football, us and Utd in particular. They simply cannot get enough of it (check the Bangkok post for extensive football reports) and are likely to spend their cash on English footy regardless of whether LFC are involved there or not. Due to several reasons (especially counterfeiting being rife), overseas clubs acting alone are unlikely to make much money in the Thai market. Local partners with good political connections are essential if we want the club to see any benefit from the millions which Thai fans will spend on English football.

If you are worried about the principle of surrendering the rights (as Steve Morgan has attempted to play upon) then don't be. We stand to do a lot better with Thai partners than without. So Liverpool will benefit from an overseas marketing operation that should see us become 'the' premier league club of choice for millions of people in South East Asia. Over time, the clubs profile and earning capacity could potentially soar. This is the best aspect of the bid for LFC as it promises to create a long term income stream that will continue to strengthen the club year after year. Those investing in us will have an interest in our success as they will share in it.

What about the Thai people however? None of us want to see Thai Liverpool fans exploited after all do we? This is the second part of the synergy.

What they don't have is any real pride in their own national league or setup - and long term thats not good. They need to develop their own talents and national league and raise standards - if the Thais get the kind of national team they deserve they will go bananas - and I'd like to see them do it as they deserve a decent side.

To do this however the Thais need to stop looking down on their own domestic footballers - in many ways idolising our players is hurting the developnment of their own game - and I think their sports minister has realised this and decided to use the interest in foreign football and turn it on its head to help stimulate the Thai game. Enter Liverpool, along with Utd the most popular club in the country. If we lend our expertise and brand to the national acadamy the Thai people will take it much more seroiously. Talented Thai footballers will be encouraged and the game over there may get the push it needs to develop.

The more I've thought about it the more I think this idea might work. There is no reason why given the correct coaching and the opportunity for the best to come overseas that Thailand should not start to produce world class footballers. The problem is spotting them early enough to expose them to the latest thinking and training methods. We can help do that. Obviously we can't promise them a place in the team but they can come over and maybe we can do a deal with Crewe or Marine etc and give them a taste of English football. There is a large enough pool of players over there to make this a mutually beneficial exercise.

I know many will recoil from this kind of thinking and I can well understand the reasons why. Its almost like the moment when a parent realises the child is growing up - this is the moment when LFC, a club rooted in tradition is making perhaps the biggest stride towards becoming a global power that any UK club has ever done. I think however that this is an inevitable process and that in the Thai people we have found one of the best partners that we could possibly want. I think we can help each other, I hope we have the courage to take the opportunity. To an extent this is going to be difficult for many of us here in the UK. This is the logical result of the globalisation of English football, yet we are already a global community here on RAWK and elsewhere in the online world, and I for one like it that way.

I'm interested in what LFC fans overseas have to say - I was one myself for a long time after all and being away gave me a different perspective on the game and how I see LFC. I don't feel threatened by opening the club up to the Thai people because I know they love the institution as well - there are no votes in Thailand for damaging LFC - thats why I think there is a synergy at work. I think this could be a very mutually beneficial partnership. It shows imagination and bravery - and a degree of opportunism between both the Board of LFC and the Thai Govt. I think it might be one of those big steps that organisations sometimes have to take to bring them forward.

The alternative offered by Steve Morgan does not fill me with optimism. He's saying many of the things that the fans want to hear - more local players, no bad signings etc but the reality is that he wants the club for his own. I'm sure he wants it to be succesful but I think he has an ego that will not accept questioning and he lacks the imagination to take the club to this next level. His business career was based in the UK and I worry that his thinking is too parochial. In the fulness of time the ongoing income from this deal could dwarf his immediate cash injection and I would far rather the club work on new revenue streams than rely on the caprices of a rich man injecting cash when he chooses.

One final aspect which I suspect is a factor in the boards thinking. There is the looming possibility on the horizon of a European super league (which I don't want). There may come a moment when the biggest clubs in Europe decide to break away from the present struture, it may well be inevitable, just as in retrospect the development of the Premier League seems to have been. When that moment comes, Man Utd and probably Chelsea due to their wealth will be guaranteed a place at the top table, Arsenal are also looking like shoe ins. I think there is room for one more club from the EPL and I know that I want it to be Liverpool. To make sure we get there I think we need the new stadium and as little debt as possible hampering us in the transfer market. We need therefore to take a big step, the alternative may be to slip and become top of the second division of English clubs.

© Armin Tamzarian 2004

[Byrnee]

Read this yesterday Armin, absolutely right there. Wish the Echo would print it. In fact have you e-mailed them with it?

[Rashid]

I doubt the Echo would print that to be honest - they are pro Morgan all the way.

[Kopite]

I doubt the Echo would print that to be honest - they are pro Morgan all the way.

Bloody hell I agree with Rash

Seriously it is an absolute disgrace the way "the paper that speaks up for Merseyside" has reported all this. 

[Rashid]

I agree, especially as the current board give them so much access to the team. The Echo of all rags should at least give a balanced view as so many fans are confused.

[Skeeve]

Seriously it is an absolute disgrace the way "the paper that speaks up for Merseyside" has reported all this. 

I have been away with work in paris for the last week, what would most people describe as the general feeling on merseyside with regards to these 2 bids, most of the media seem to be pushing that morgan bid, are they mirroring public opinion or trying to force public opinion?

[Kopite]

I have been away with work in paris for the last week, what would most people describe as the general feeling on merseyside with regards to these 2 bids, most of the media seem to be pushing that morgan bid, are they mirroring public opinion or trying to force public opinion?

I think they are trying to force it.  Thanks to the likes of Rushian and Ivan the Red (on YNWA) we've all been able to see how unattractive the Morgan deal is, it is criminal that both the national and local press have ignored it's shortcomings.

Instead they have concentrated on "that Thai bloke" and his human rights record (which as Armin has shown is not as bad as the national press have portrayed).  They've made a big deal of Morgan and this "I'm a fan and a self-made man".

Far be it from me to cast aspertions, but I think the British press is Xenophobic at best and inherently racist at worst.

You can almost feel the "Don't want no slanty-eyed gook in the English Premiership" coming from Fleet Street.  I think the press if this country are vermin (apologies to any rats on here) and I've seen nothing in the past week to change this, rather it has been reinforced.

[[delete]]

The fact is though, you ask anyone on the streets of Liverpool and they will reply they'd want Morgan

[Kopite]

The fact is though, you ask anyone on the streets of Liverpool and they will reply they'd want Morgan

And that's the problem.  Morgan has played a blinder on this one, the board need to come clean.  If people knew what he's proposing he wouldn't have the support he has.

[redmonkey]

The alternative offered by Steve Morgan does not fill me with optimism. He's saying many of the things that the fans want to hear - more local players, no bad signings etc but the reality is that he wants the club for his own. I'm sure he wants it to be succesful but I think he has an ego that will not accept questioning and he lacks the imagination to take the club to this next level. His business career was based in the UK and I worry that his thinking is too parochial. In the fulness of time the ongoing income from this deal could dwarf his immediate cash injection and I would far rather the club work on new revenue streams than rely on the caprices of a rich man injecting cash when he chooses.

I agree with that

I don't like the way that a rich businessman can waltz in from Jersey and start wanting to order people around

These deals seem to be about the club getting revenue while avoiding becoming a PLC, which I think would be a disaster - so it's the case of getting the best longterm revenue stream

[Mal]

Morgan worries me, too much of a meddler....Also, don't like his 'on the cheap' tactics so he can take his tax free money back to Jersey.

However, despite disliking Morgan's bid I still have many unresolved questions about the Thai money. Until I have half decent answers on the following I cannot back this business partnership or 'synergy' (whatever you want to call it...)

I have two main problems with the Thai bid, money and morals.

I'll take Money first.

Does any partner involved have to buy part-ownership of the club? Why should they? Couldn't they just get exclusivity and a share of the profits?

Where is the money is coming from, public of private funds? - This matters in the context of a change of Government and also if the money is private money i've heard all kinds of unsubstantiated rumours about where his money came from, his links to organised crime etc...


Secondly, morals (kind of linked to the point too...)

Does the business partner in Thailand have to be their PM?
Does the partner involved have to have ultimate responsibility for an anti-drugs policy which has seen the murder of over 2000 people last year?
Does the partner involved have to have a sequence of unanswered charges against him from Amnesty International??


I know we'd all like the money but I cannot be clear with my own conscience unless the above have been answered satisfactorily.

Don't mean to rain on anyones parade, just concerned by so many unanswered questions, it's nearly a week since the Thai PM said the deal was done but we still don't know any of the details...

[Rushian]

apparently the Echo had a pul out section on friday night explaining the Morgan offer. It's been suggested to me that they nicked it off here

Anyone seen it or still got Friday's copy?

[Dan_L]

Gone through Fridays Echo, nothing to suggest they nicked anything off here.

[Rushian]

found the article Dan - it's Dave Prentice's:

Click here

seems to borrow rather heavily from the Rough Guide to Morgan's Scouse offering ...

[cyn]

I'm from Singapore and feel uneasy about both Morgan and Thaksin.  Can't comment on the latter and the accusations re his human rights record as I don't live in Thailand nor do I know anyone who lives in that country.

Would like to read the views of Thai Reds - do any of them post on here?

Here's a repost of some views from Thai Reds on the Official Forum:
http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/Forum3/HTML/262342.html

NoThaksin
Fan
Posts: 5
Registered: May 2004
  posted 13 May 2004 02:35 PM         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
juicyk
Well, I actually *live* in Thailand and as much as I would like to respond to your post (again) about exactly why LFC should not involve itself with him, I cannot. It seems factually accurate but negative statements about him and his actions are being deleted by moderators.

If his offer does get accepted my initial disgust will only be exceeded by the club's impending world-wide embarrassment from his political actions both past, present and future.

Willy-T
Fan
Posts: 12
Registered: May 2004
  posted 13 May 2004 03:16 PM         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For most of you who do not trust Thaksin, I, as a Thai, will give you some information (really neutral and real)  hope it might help somehow
Negative side
- He does not really have any passion in football game. He has a country to run. He supports Man U? No. He supports Thai international team? A bit, hes Thai after all. He supports Liverpool? I don't think so.
- He does not really care whether GH stays or leaves. (but every single Thai Liverpool fans, million of us, wants him out trust me  )
- He is not as rich as Roman.
- Liverpool shares will be out of Liverpool.
- He should have done this offer for more votes! I am quite sure.
- Nobody knows about this!, there will be a vote for confidence by opposing parties in the parliament to kick some dumb ministers (but not Thaksin) out very very soon. He tries to distract our attention.
Positive Side
- He will not influence the club much. I think it's good. Only some stupid marketing strategies, may be you'll see some Thai home-made handicrafts or some food there in Liverpool.
- He's rich, some extra money will be there (although Houllier might not spend it wisely)

That's all I can think of right now. But if Morgan can lead Liverpool better, we prefer him.

ynwa (there are a million of Liverpool fans in Far East who watch the same game you watch  )
http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/Forum3/HTML/263862.html
Author  Topic:   Stop the Madness 
FrankH
Kopite
Posts: 577
Registered: May 2001
  posted 15 May 2004 02:55 PM         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to share my thoughts on the news that our Prime Minister is talking about buying 30% of our club.
It's exciting news to everybody here. However, there are two perspectives among the fans.

Some view this as a positive change that will give LFC some money to strengthen the squad, as well as a chance to connect our beloved club to our home country.

Some fear that the P.M. just jumps to this on purely business purposes and will destroy our team.

I'm with the latter.

Let me tell you a bit about his background. He was NEVER regarded as a football fan. Even after the news leaked on Sunday that he would finalize the deal with Rick Parry on Monday, he was quoted to have asked his friend if he watched the Liverpool-Birmingham game (It was broadcasted live here in Thailand at about 11:30 p.m. Saturday night) and that what the result was!

A guy who is about to buy Liverpool DID NOT see the match live and DID NOT know the result of such an important match!

Liverpool have made 3 trips to Thailand in 1983, 2001, and 2003. He NEVER showed up at the stadium to watch the match. Instead, when the mancs came here in 2002, he was at the stadium watching the match, and was presented with number-52 jersey by Alex Ferguson. (He was celebrating his 52nd birthday then.) Is this really a guy we want to own our club?

He was telling the Thais that buying Liverpool would give us a chance to improve our players, and that we would have a chance to see Thai player play for Liverpool!

Imagine a sub-standard player (I'll have to admit that) forcing his way to the side just because we own the team.

A few years ago, arguably our best player was given a chance to try his luck with Huddersfield town under Steve Bruce's management. That year they met LFC in the FA Cup and we here were very exciting of a prospect that he might be playing against Liverpool.

What really happened was that he was the subs of the reserve team and made just brief appearances before heading back home. What I am saying here is that our arguably best player was a subs in the reserve team of Huddersfield and now the P.M. is planning to send someone to play for Liverpool if the deal becomes successful.

His style of running the country is well known as a marketing style, lots of promotion, lots of advertising, and trying to please the majority of the people just to get the votes.

This is sure to be one of his tools to gain public awareness. So can somebody please stop David Moores and Rick Parry from selling the club to this man!


--------------------------
From: www.liverpoolway.co.uk
--------------------------




 
 

[Dave Rose]

There is no context allowable for human rights abuses. Being the best of a bad bunch might be fine in the playground, it's not fine where 2,500 people have been killed under an opressive regime. I don't think Morgan's bid is attractive, I think he's grotesquely undervalued the club and knows he can get away with doing so and still have local support. But you have to blame LFC for considering the Thai bid in the first place - this is a PR disaster for them and Morgan has the opportunity to cash in. The fact is, if the Thai bid is successful, it will be very difficult for me to justify spending any money on the club (tickets, merchandise, etc) knowing that a murderous regime will benefit from it. That saddens me to say. I can suffer poor football, I can suffer mediocrity and bad signings - I can suffer all the things it's only right to suffer as a football fan. But I will not suffer the suffering of other people, and I will certainly not contribute to it. 96 people suffered for Liverpool FC in 1989. Countless families. Supporters of LFC know all about tragedy. Tragedy and murder happening on the other side of the globe does not make tragedy and murder ok. I think the entire Liverpool board should resign over the way this has been handled. I genuinely don't know how they even came to consider the Thai bid. I think they have been blinded by failure, which is a poor indictment of Liverpool's last decade - that they can consider becoming partners with such a regime for the sake of a cash injection. That fans seem to be more offended by him accepting a Man U shirt than by the murders and death squads he's sanctioned does not gladden the soul. I don't give a flying fcuk whether he has any knowledge of the team. He's a murderer. We shouldn't even be getting to the stage of debating his loyalty.

[Armin]

There is no context allowable for human rights abuses. Being the best of a bad bunch might be fine in the playground, it's not fine where 2,500 people have been killed under an opressive regime. I don't think Morgan's bid is attractive, I think he's grotesquely undervalued the club and knows he can get away with doing so and still have local support. But you have to blame LFC for considering the Thai bid in the first place - this is a PR disaster for them and Morgan has the opportunity to cash in. The fact is, if the Thai bid is successful, it will be very difficult for me to justify spending any money on the club (tickets, merchandise, etc) knowing that a murderous regime will benefit from it. That saddens me to say. I can suffer poor football, I can suffer mediocrity and bad signings - I can suffer all the things it's only right to suffer as a football fan. But I will not suffer the suffering of other people, and I will certainly not contribute to it. 96 people suffered for Liverpool FC in 1989. Countless families. Supporters of LFC know all about tragedy. Tragedy and murder happening on the other side of the globe does not make tragedy and murder ok. I think the entire Liverpool board should resign over the way this has been handled. I genuinely don't know how they even came to consider the Thai bid. I think they have been blinded by failure, which is a poor indictment of Liverpool's last decade - that they can consider becoming partners with such a regime for the sake of a cash injection. That fans seem to be more offended by him accepting a Man U shirt than by the murders and death squads he's sanctioned does not gladden the soul. I don't give a flying fcuk whether he has any knowledge of the team. He's a murderer. We shouldn't even be getting to the stage of debating his loyalty.

I admire the strength of your convictions Dave but I question the depth of your knowledge on Thailand?  Your rhetoric paints a very different picture to the country that I know, many That's would also dispute a portrayal that would be more aptly applied to Myanamar than democratic Thailand.

Amnesty International have an excellent website which carries the reports upon which many of the papers have based their reporting.  If you read the full document you will see a country which is democractic, has a constitution, an elected executive and is a signatory to the various UN agreements on Human Rights.  There are legitimate concerns regarding the anti drugs campaign and the fighting against Muslim separatists in the South but viewing these in context does nor equate to abandoning all moral criteria.

Amnesty themselves did not counsel Liverpool against making the deal, they used the attention to put the spotlight on human rights and that is desirable.  Should Thailand use this opportunity to propel themselves further into the global consciousness this focus will be intensified and the pressure on the Thais to improve their record will be increased. 

[Dave Rose]

Naturally my limited knowledge of Thailand could never match yours, and I wouldn't pretend otherwise, however I'm a little concerned by some of the caveat of 'context' you've allowed here. Again I ask, under what circumstances is right for any government to murder with impunity those whom it believes to be breaking the law whilst refusing any independent investigation?

Thailand may well be as democratic as the term ambiguously allows, I don't dispute that. Rather I would suggest that the Prime Minister has cynically used Liverpool to tap into the vein of football popularity that surges through the country. Following the disenchanment in the country that has grown since the government's violent crackdown on drug trafficking, it has become essential for it to regain lost ground. Liverpool FC has therefore become an easy arras behind which can be hidden an awful lot of distinctly unattractive actions that would otherwise chase away voters.

Finally, as a fully paid-up member of Amnesty, I don't believe the organisation has ever endorsed complete co-operation with a regime as a way of gaining human rights improvements. I quote now from their site, which you helpfully suggested I visit:

"Thailand's anti-drug policy should not be killing people

Amnesty International is concerned that government measures against drug crime in Thailand have led to serious human rights violations, including alleged extrajudicial killing and use of the death penalty.


Summary

"We'd make sure the drug traffickers have only two places to stay - jail or the cemetery. They'd have no other places to stay in our society."

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, 24 March 2003.


Amnesty International is concerned that government measures against drug crime in Thailand have led to serious human rights violations, including alleged extrajudicial killing and use of the death penalty.

Last year more than 1,000 people were killed within three months during a government campaign to eradicate drugs, particularly methamphetamines, from the country. There has been no thorough and independent investigation of their deaths and of all allegations of security forces' reported involvement in a number of cases.

Since 2001, hundreds of men and women, including foreign nationals and members of Thailand's ethnic minorities, have been sentenced to death for drug offences, and numbers on death row have tripled.

Join Amnesty International in calling on authorities to institute an independent, thorough and impartial investigation into those killed between February and March 2003, to make the findings public, and to bring to justice any member of the security forces suspected of involvement. Amnesty International also calls on authorities to abolish the death penalty, and pending this to institute an immediate moratorium on executions in the country.


Take action! "

There is nothing ambiguous about that final statement - "Take action!" I like to think that by not giving my money to such a regime, I will in my own small part indeed be 'taking action'. Thailand may be many things - beautiful and proud amongst them - but these things do not excuse this or any country from extrajudicial actions against it's own citizens - whatever the volume, whatever the reason.

[nNoNn]

Hi. I'm living in Bangkok Thailand and I'm here in Thailand typing this reply.

I just CAN'T stand this stuff about Amnesty International saying things like the Thai government killed 1,000- 2,000 people in it's war on drugs. That is complete non-sense! And it has nothing to do with human rights!! I can't believe hoe people from one country just claim something about something happening in another country in which they don't know the real story of what happened!!

The real story is that 1,000-2,000 people did die but the government didn't kill them!! The drug lords did!! It was because there was never a government that truly did anything about drugs in Thailand until Thaksin's government in which he declared "war" on drugs. But that didn't mean he set out to kill all drug dealers!! He just organised with the police to search and arrest all drug dealers all over the country. There was never anything like this in Thailand and the drug lords and the drug dealers all over the country were afraid! So they started killing each other, from the top down. The 'little' dealers (all over the country) got killed by 'bigger' dealers so that the police wouldn't be able to arrest the little dealers who might have provided links/clues/information to the police to arrest the 'bigger' dealers. The level 'bigger' than that were also afraid the cops might get clues leading to them, so they killed the level below also. And this happened right to the top 'drug lords'. It was called 'Kah Tat Torn' or 'Kill to Cut the Link'. The drug lords killed to cut any link that might lead to them being arrested.

The police DID kill some drug dealers (I'm not sure how many, probably no more than 40, probably much less), but it was because they were fighting back with guns and military weapons in their hiding places and they wouldn't surrender.

This whole 'drug war' was something most Thais were very supportive of because no government ever did anything like it, it meant drugs would be harder to find, and our youth would be safer from it. It meant a severe blow to the organised crime in Thailand, and no government has really done anything about 'organised crime' until now. Thus the organised crimelords are one of the groups that has 'opposition' to Thaksin.

Thaksin has also lead our economic recovery and putting us back to high GDP growth rates, in some years even exceding the Bank of Thailand's estimates.

As anything related to politics, people have their views, and some Thais (but probably not too many) will say Thaksin is a bad leader for Thai people.

But at least in my view (and also many others' views including some Thai journalists) Thaksin has been our best leader to date since it being a democratic country. (Polls still confirm that Thaksin has the majority approval.)

Next time when you read something about a human rights organisation blaming someone for something in another country, be sure to check with people in that country to see what the real story is!

[MichaelA]

apparently the Echo had a pul out section on friday night explaining the Morgan offer. It's been suggested to me that they nicked it off here

Anyone seen it or still got Friday's copy?

From the 'It's not Morgan v Moores' thread:

And the whole article is the most concise and well thought out piece I have read. I would expect to see it pilfered in the sports pages of our slack national papers this weekend.

 

[Armin]

Naturally my limited knowledge of Thailand could never match yours, and I wouldn't pretend otherwise, however I'm a little concerned by some of the caveat of 'context' you've allowed here. Again I ask, under what circumstances is right for any government to murder with impunity those whom it believes to be breaking the law whilst refusing any independent investigation?

Thailand may well be as democratic as the term ambiguously allows, I don't dispute that. Rather I would suggest that the Prime Minister has cynically used Liverpool to tap into the vein of football popularity that surges through the country. Following the disenchanment in the country that has grown since the government's violent crackdown on drug trafficking, it has become essential for it to regain lost ground. Liverpool FC has therefore become an easy arras behind which can be hidden an awful lot of distinctly unattractive actions that would otherwise chase away voters.

Finally, as a fully paid-up member of Amnesty, I don't believe the organisation has ever endorsed complete co-operation with a regime as a way of gaining human rights improvements. I quote now from their site, which you helpfully suggested I visit:

"Thailand's anti-drug policy should not be killing people

Amnesty International is concerned that government measures against drug crime in Thailand have led to serious human rights violations, including alleged extrajudicial killing and use of the death penalty.


Summary

"We'd make sure the drug traffickers have only two places to stay - jail or the cemetery. They'd have no other places to stay in our society."

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, 24 March 2003.


Amnesty International is concerned that government measures against drug crime in Thailand have led to serious human rights violations, including alleged extrajudicial killing and use of the death penalty.

Last year more than 1,000 people were killed within three months during a government campaign to eradicate drugs, particularly methamphetamines, from the country. There has been no thorough and independent investigation of their deaths and of all allegations of security forces' reported involvement in a number of cases.

Since 2001, hundreds of men and women, including foreign nationals and members of Thailand's ethnic minorities, have been sentenced to death for drug offences, and numbers on death row have tripled.

Join Amnesty International in calling on authorities to institute an independent, thorough and impartial investigation into those killed between February and March 2003, to make the findings public, and to bring to justice any member of the security forces suspected of involvement. Amnesty International also calls on authorities to abolish the death penalty, and pending this to institute an immediate moratorium on executions in the country.


Take action! "

There is nothing ambiguous about that final statement - "Take action!" I like to think that by not giving my money to such a regime, I will in my own small part indeed be 'taking action'. Thailand may be many things - beautiful and proud amongst them - but these things do not excuse this or any country from extrajudicial actions against it's own citizens - whatever the volume, whatever the reason.

Thanks for your response.  This is a difficult question to do justice to in a short format so please excuse me if this is a somewhat lengthy reply!  To be honest I was concerned with posting the positive aspects of this deal and did not give this aspect the time it deserved, so I've tried to redress the balance. 

Firstly if (as it appears to me from your response) my recommendation of the Amnesty site appeared patronising I apologise, it was a genuine attempt on my part to bring some more detail to what has been a debate strong in emotive rhetoric and weak on factual evidence.  Likewise if my questioning your knowledge of the country appeared to be an attempt to play the expert card rather than engage with the subject, this was not my intention and obviously any viewpoint has validity and no-one (certainly not myself)  is in posession of all the evidence.

The answer to your question is of course that it is never right for a government to 'murder with impugnity'.  If one truly believes in the concept of inalienable human rights then by definition any breach is wholly unacceptable in any form.  Furthermore, it is wrong regardless of whether the victim is a campaigner for justice or a murderer.  If the standard to have any meaning one must be as strong in ones support for the rights of the unattractive or guilty as one is for the innocent.  It would be wrong to violate the rights of Ian Huntley or Ian Brady for instance despite the thousands who would gladly do so given the opportunity.  These are fundamental principles with which I do not disagree.  However, (and if you like this is the point where I suggest there must be an appreciation of context,) this is not in and of itself the entire story. 

You and I can happily sit in our peaceful Western Democracy and exchange views concerning the Rights of Man and the benefits of a plural democracy and an independent judiciary.  We are lucky in that we are the beneficiaries of many years of struggle to acheive some measure of fairness and protection.  We have the resources to ensure a meaningful investigation can take place into any event and we have a benign and tame environment with secure borders.  We also maintain one of the best equipped Armed forces in the world and our police are well trained and resourced.  Viewed in a global context we are extremely fortunate.  As you will know, vast swathes of the planet are not so fortunate and Thailand sits in the midst of a region that has seen some of the greatest abuses of people in the history of our planet.  The Thai people are surrounded by a collection of nations where the rule of law does not hold sway, by drug smugglers intent on hooking the Thai population on their wares and in the South of Thailand a Muslim separatist movement which is spiralling into violence. 

The Thais look to their neighbours and are horrified.  They look overseas and see the massacres in Indonesia, the way the drug lords took over Laos and the brutal excesses of Myanmar and they are fearful of going the same way.  They might argue that their human rights are being abused by the very people that Thaksin is targeting.  To the Thai people who live with the consequences of the Drug lords and the Fundamentalists what we refer to as context is the very fabric of their lives.  If you are the leader of Thailand you have a responsibility to protect your people and to ensure the rule of Law.  You also have limited resources to police a nation with insecure borders and the threats you face are very real.

I should say that I wouldn't dispute that in regards to the drugs smugglers they may be  operating a 'shoot to kill' policy.  From travels to the region before there are periodic 'clampdowns' in other countries.  They are brutal and I condemn them.  I will not condemn the entire nation however, nor even the regime in its entirety.  Especially as there is so much there which is commendable as the Amnesty report makes clear. 

You may respond that such detail is immaterial and there is no excuse for extra judicial murder.  I would not disagree, but I would say that it is better to make an effort and understand what is driving these actions.  Is it the response of a Pinochet or a Hussein?  Is this the desperate response of a Mugabe, trying to put off the inevitable fall of a fractured regime?  No, it is the response of a Blair or a Berlusconi, albeit in a land where the cosy norms of Western Democracy are yet to hold sway in the hinterlands.  Thaksin is happy to discuss the policy in disguised terminology because he knows it is popular.  It is a misconception that internal dissent is stemming from Human Rights issues, the question of corruption is more of a driver for opposition as far as I can gather.  Its a populist action, undoubtedly wrong by our standards, but the people of Thailand disagree.  Hopefully, opinions will change, outside pressure will contribute but ultimately the Thais decide their own fate at the ballot box, they elected this man he didn't seize power via a coup.  He is  applying the harshest of measures to what they perceive as a crisis and they support him in his actions.   

I'm also wary about how far these matters should govern the decisions of a football club. Where would it stop?  It might be possible to argue that buying Columbian players rewards the drug lords that bought into their domestic football market to clean their money for example.  Another perhaps more extreme example. Human Rights groups suggest that the UK operated a shoot to kill policy with Irish Terrorists in the 80's, indeed there is some evidence of collusion between the security services in Northern Ireland and the Loyalist terror groups.  Sadly this policy would not have elicted much resentment from the mainstream British Public opinion at the time.  Would this be any different to what is happening in Thailand now?  Furthermore, after the Taylor report the Govt funded some of the new stadium building that went on - should the clubs have refused to accept this 'blood money'?  Now I would suggest that this is absurd,  but it is a logical corollary of using solely the Human Rights angle when attempting to judge the acceptabilty of a course of action.  It should be important, if you are Amnesty International it should be paramount but if you are Rick Parry or Liverpool Football Club it should not be the sole factor on which a decision is taken. 

As I said previously, I admire the strength of your moral convictions and I'm aware that you may consider any of my argument to be merely an excuse for brutality.  In my defence I will say that I have a great affection for the Thai people and would not want to lend support to any project that would be to their detriment.   An immense amount of good might be achieved by our involvement over there, should that be ignored simply so that we can keep our conscience immaculately clean?  If this is the case then is it really the well being of the Thai people that motivates us or is it an ultimately selfish desire to maintain a position of moral superiority and detachment?   

[Dave Rose]

Next time when you read something about a human rights organisation blaming someone for something in another country, be sure to check with people in that country to see what the real story is!

Amnesty International are a reliable source, and I'm pretty damn sure they do check with people in that country. Given the publicity over the human rights debate, why doesn't Thaksin himself make a public statement to clarify the issue? I'd certainly welcome it, and I think Amnesty would like to hear one too, along with the UN.

[Armin]

Amnesty International are a reliable source, and I'm pretty damn sure they do check with people in that country. Given the publicity over the human rights debate, why doesn't Thaksin himself make a public statement to clarify the issue? I'd certainly welcome it, and I think Amnesty would like to hear one too, along with the UN.

The UN have recently sent an observer to Thailand.  They are overdue to post a report on her conclusions. 

http://www.unhchr.ch/defenders/

[Dave Rose]

 An immense amount of good might be achieved by our involvement over there, should that be ignored simply so that we can keep our conscience immaculately clean?  If this is the case then is it really the well being of the Thai people that motivates us or is it an ultimately selfish desire to maintain a position of moral superiority and detachment?   

Thanks for you reply. This is not an issue of conscience, nor of moral superiority - it's about human rights. Given the amount of disagreement here, and given the suspicion Thaksin's government is viewed with, there should be an immediate statement made by both Thaksin and LFC to clarify many points. Where is the money coming from? Is it from his own private funds of from public money? Is the bid to increase his chances of re-election or genuinely increase the footballing acumen of Thailand? Finally, and more significantly, will Thaksin bow to pressure from Amnesty and "institute an independent, thorough and impartial investigation into those killed between February and March 2003, to make the findings public, and to bring to justice any member of the security forces suspected of involvement". I would have thought that any confidence in having  actred correctly would produce such an investigation. The drugs lords may well be raining havoc and destruction upon Thailand, but extrajudicial action means no-one actually knows if those killed were drugs lords or innocent victims. Police cover-ups are not an inherent part of democracy, and I don't think there is a single person in Liverpool who would sanction police cover-ups.

[Armin]

Thanks for you reply. This is not an issue of conscience, nor of moral superiority - it's about human rights. Given the amount of disagreement here, and given the suspicion Thaksin's government is viewed with, there should be an immediate statement made by both Thaksin and LFC to clarify many points. Where is the money coming from? Is it from his own private funds of from public money? Is the bid to increase his chances of re-election or genuinely increase the footballing acumen of Thailand? Finally, and more significantly, will Thaksin bow to pressure from Amnesty and "institute an independent, thorough and impartial investigation into those killed between February and March 2003, to make the findings public, and to bring to justice any member of the security forces suspected of involvement". I would have thought that any confidence in having  actred correctly would produce such an investigation. The drugs lords may well be raining havoc and destruction upon Thailand, but extrajudicial action means no-one actually knows if those killed were drugs lords or innocent victims. Police cover-ups are not an inherent part of democracy, and I don't think there is a single person in Liverpool who would sanction police cover-ups.

In terms of the need for more information we are in agreement.  Unfortunately we have had days of speculation and conflicting information from the Thai side.  The important question of where the money is sourced from should be answered and should they take the offer the Liverpool board need to do provide a lot more information concerning the structure of the deal.

We obviously disagree on one fundamental point.  I see human rights as one important issue amongst several in assessing whether the deal is beneficial for Liverpool FC, whilst you see it as the primary focus.  I specifically do not wish to see the club politicised in this fashion.  Taken to its logical conclusion, if you are going to make Human Rights the number one priority for LFC then many things at the club will have to change.  We should no longer tour to the US for instance so that the club may register our outrage at the imprisonments at Guantanamo bay.  We can pull out of the combined agreements on TV rights worldwide, allow our matches to be shown only in certain nations and thereby highlight the abuses of the Chinese Govt for example. 

The club obviously would not survive such a policy, as in other areas of life and business, at some point there has to be a compromise with the real world.  This doesn't mean that morality has no place, simply that it must be balanced along with other factors.

In regard to the Thai investment, I cannot envisage Thaksin agreeing to the enquiry in the year prior to the election and would imagine that any proviso that the Liverpool board might set would result in an end to the negotiations.  Quite simply, I do not think the elected head of a nation will be dictated to by a Football club, if this is your sole objective then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 

I think our involvement could have a positive impact on the Thai human Rights record - increased international attention together with a raising of awareness within the support base being the primary factors but I cannot see the Thais agreeing any comittments regarding their internal security policy in response to a request from David Moores and Rick Parry.  I think you have to be realistic about what the club can and cannot do and about the limitations of our influence. 

[Dave Rose]

We obviously disagree on one fundamental point.  I see human rights as one important issue amongst several in assessing whether the deal is beneficial for Liverpool FC, whilst you see it as the primary focus.  I specifically do not wish to see the club politicised in this fashion.  Taken to its logical conclusion, if you are going to make Human Rights the number one priority for LFC then many things at the club will have to change.  We should no longer tour to the US for instance so that the club may register our outrage at the imprisonments at Guantanamo bay.  We can pull out of the combined agreements on TV rights worldwide, allow our matches to be shown only in certain nations and thereby highlight the abuses of the Chinese Govt for example. 

In regard to the Thai investment, I cannot envisage Thaksin agreeing to the enquiry in the year prior to the election and would imagine that any proviso that the Liverpool board might set would result in an end to the negotiations.  Quite simply, I do not think the elected head of a nation will be dictated to by a Football club, if this is your sole objective then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 

I think our involvement could have a positive impact on the Thai human Rights record - increased international attention together with a raising of awareness within the support base being the primary factors but I cannot see the Thais agreeing any comittments regarding their internal security policy in response to a request from David Moores and Rick Parry.  I think you have to be realistic about what the club can and cannot do and about the limitations of our influence. 

I'm all in favour of the club withdrawing from China and the US and Sky TV, or, if that is not possible given how far down the road we've gone, at least allow it's fans to raise objections. That we've taken blood money in the past does not mean it is right to continue to do so. I'm realistic about what influence the club can have, I believe it to be minimal. I do think, however, that its supporters can be very vocal and very politicised. Should Thaksin's bid go through he will be expected to one day visit Anfield. Let's hope the banners shown on Saturday are still there for him to see.

[Armin]

I'm all in favour of the club withdrawing from China and the US and Sky TV, or, if that is not possible given how far down the road we've gone, at least allow it's fans to raise objections. That we've taken blood money in the past does not mean it is right to continue to do so. I'm realistic about what influence the club can have, I believe it to be minimal. I do think, however, that its supporters can be very vocal and very politicised. Should Thaksin's bid go through he will be expected to one day visit Anfield. Let's hope the banners shown on Saturday are still there for him to see.

The examples I gave would effectively destroy the club.  I doubt that FIFA or UEFA would long tolerate this kind of stance.  Commercial sponsors would run a mile (do you think Reebok have any interest in a US boycott?) and we could look forward to a clear conscience in the footnotes of sporting history.  I gave them to illustrate the limitations of what the club can rationally do.   

I'm unclear as to how you feel the club has stifled the fans ability to object?  Certainly outside of Anfield the club has no rights whatsoever, there is nothing to stop concerned supporters taking to the streets and voicing their objections.  I  'm all for exercising the democratic right to protest, although many of the people who have so far stepped up to condemn the Thai bid have shown little knowledge of the actual situation  and occasionally an antipathy to all things foreign which I find disturbing.  It would be ironic if those advocating a more enlightened Human Rights approach in Thailand gained most support from the more xenophobic elements of our home support... 

The banner extolling the virtues of Steve Morgan and claiming the Thai bid was 'blood money' I have no wish to see at Anfield again. I want no part of Morgan's duplicity and I dispute the usage of such an emotive and deliberatly inflammatory term. Nevertheless, they are free to promote their views. 

[Dave Rose]

  I  'm all for exercising the democratic right to protest, although many of the people who have so far stepped up to condemn the Thai bid have shown little knowledge of the actual situation  and occasionally an antipathy to all things foreign which I find disturbing.  It would be ironic if those advocating a more enlightened Human Rights approach in Thailand gained most support from the more xenophobic elements of our home support... 

The banner extolling the virtues of Steve Morgan and claiming the Thai bid was 'blood money' I have no wish to see at Anfield again. I want no part of Morgan's duplicity and I dispute the usage of such an emotive and deliberatly inflammatory term. Nevertheless, they are free to promote their views. 

I haven't seen any antipathy to all things foreign on the Liverpool message boards - perhaps I'm looking at the more enlightened sites. Liverpool has always been a club with an international outlook, the city itself was for centuries the gateway to the world from within Europe. I condemn xenophobia wholeheartedly, as I'm sure do the majority of supporters. I also don't view Morgan's bid as a viable alternative, which seems to be an attempt to make the most of bad publicity to table an offer undervaluing the club and casting Morgan as some sort of flawed hero. There were many banners around the Kop on Saturday objecting to Thaksin's bid, and many also objecting to Morgan's. There were also many sporting the Amnesty insignia and, as befits a support of rare wit, posters from The Kop magazine proclaiming 'This is Liverpool, European City of Culture' for the benefit of the Newcastle fans. I do agree, however, that the use of 'Thai' on that one particular banner was, indeed, xenophobic, ill-informed, generalised and wrong. I don't yet believe that xenophobia has drowned out the enlightened Human Rights approach to this debate.

[zowie]

I haven't seen any antipathy to all things foreign on the Liverpool message boards - perhaps I'm looking at the more enlightened sites. Liverpool has always been a club with an international outlook, the city itself was for centuries the gateway to the world from within Europe. I condemn xenophobia wholeheartedly, as I'm sure do the majority of supporters. I also don't view Morgan's bid as a viable alternative, which seems to be an attempt to make the most of bad publicity to table an offer undervaluing the club and casting Morgan as some sort of flawed hero. There were many banners around the Kop on Saturday objecting to Thaksin's bid, and many also objecting to Morgan's. There were also many sporting the Amnesty insignia and, as befits a support of rare wit, posters from The Kop magazine proclaiming 'This is Liverpool, European City of Culture' for the benefit of the Newcastle fans. I do agree, however, that the use of 'Thai' on that one particular banner was, indeed, xenophobic, ill-informed, generalised and wrong. I don't yet believe that xenophobia has drowned out the enlightened Human Rights approach to this debate.

  Hi I was at the game on Sat in the Kop and the only banners I saw were anti Thai and Pro Morgan luv!
Can you tell me what the Anti Morgan banners that you were referring to said???
Just out of interest as they never showed any Anti Morgan banners on the Premiership either only the Anti Thai ones!??

[Rushian]

As far as I'm aware there was only one banner referring to the investment proposals and that was the one paraded in front of the Kop pre-ynwa "we want Morgan not Thai blood money" - not heard of any others from anyone who was there, or on any other forums.

[zowie]

As far as I'm aware there was only one banner referring to the investment proposals and that was the one paraded in front of the Kop pre-ynwa "we want Morgan not Thai blood money" - not heard of any others from anyone who was there, or on any other forums.

  There was also this one Rushian luv!!

           

However I never saw any Anti Morgan ones and that was what I was asking Dave Rose to tell me about!

[Roger]

I dont buy in to all this symbiotic stuff. When the going got tough- or if the Government changed it would all get a bit 'flakey'. I dont like Morgans bid either.

[Spartacus.]

There was also an anti Thai one in the Paddock by me...

[Rushian]

bloody hell they're popping up everywhere! Christine, what did that one say?

[Spartacus.]

Little shitty one on some cardboard held up by 2 men, but obviously right in front of all the directors….

Say no to Thai deal….

[Rushian]

cheers Chris

[xen]

i find it ironic that ppl are using amnesty international as a stick to beat Thailand with when UK isn't exactly a model of good behavior.

http://news.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGMDE140192004

at the end of the day, it was a financially sound decision by the board. 

[Dave Rose]

RE: the anti-Morgan on Sat, I saw at least two referring to Morgan's backing of a groundshare (the gist was they didn't want it), and I saw one that seemed to be getting at both bids, something along the lines of 'your money, our club, sort it out'. One of these was outside the Stanley before the match, though, so I can't honestly say if it shown inside the ground, and they were admitedly half-arsed attempts at banners. It is a shame that the one shown on the Premiership, and the one used in this board, refer to 'Thai' money rather than 'Thaksin' specifically. There is a danger of being inflammatory towards Thais, which I think is unneccessary. I peronsally would rather Morgan stopped taking the piss and put in a bid that makes sense rather than one that he knew would be rejected but get him great publicity anyway. Really, all I want is someone with a passion for a team to come in and take it forward, but I don't see either bidder as being that person. If Morgan grows up, then fine, but right now he's playing a PR game and, for the first time in about 18 months, I find myself siding with Houllier.

[Armin]

The banner that was televised was the only one I saw inside although I was sat towards the back of the Kop.  As I said before I found it offensive, mainly through the implication that any 'Thai' money was by definition 'blood money'.  I also didn't like the implied favouring of the Morgan bid, by his conduct over the past couple of weeks I don't really want him anywhere near the boardroom.

[Dave Rose]

I absolutely agree with you on all of this, Armin.