Oh, What A Tangled Web by Peter Reeves: 2016

Peter Reeves' article on the farcical last minute pre season discussions to extend the TPL from 18 to 20 clubs in 2016.

Oh, What A Tangled Web
by Peter Reeves
9th January, 2016

What we have in Thai football at the moment is not dissimilar to the situation with FIFA. You have here an organization that has lost all credibility, except with those whose needs it chooses to serve, and there clearly needs to be a complete overall of the system. It appears that the Thai FA have become ‘not fit for purpose’. It is difficult to know of course, just how much credibility they actually had before this latest debacle, but questions do need to be asked and answers given. Of course with an organization that is not actually responsible to anyone and considers itself untouchable you aren’t probably going to get any. They will simply dig their heels in and claim you have ‘no right to question us’. Heard that before somewhere in Europe recently haven’t we. The usual answer for the guilty where answers will just expose unethical behaviour and actions.

Let me pause for a minute and just say. I am not an expert on Thai football and its organization (or apparent lack of it). I am not as knowledgeable as many reading this and not privy to certain information that may be available to others and of course I was not in that room to hear what was said. If, therefore, I get something wrong then I stand corrected and hold my hands up in apology. I am not going to dwell on the ongoing situation with Suphanburi, and being refused entry to an event they had qualified for or the Sukothai and Nakhon Pathom farce where a match remains unplayed 8 months after its scheduled date which will have an effect on who gets promoted.

Each of those is a separate issue. But clearly the mismanagement of Thai football has reached catastrophic proportions. The withdrawal of Chonburi, Buriram and Ratchaburi, whilst honourable, is not the answer. A near ‘total’ withdrawal may have been but with any such action, you rip down one authority but it’s still got to be replaced with something else. There is nothing else in place. There can be nothing else in place in time for a new season fast approaching. A near ‘total’ withdrawal? I will make a comment about that later.

As I have said in my articles before, governing bodies are often a plague on the sport they claim to represent, but there has to be some legitimate body to ‘manage’ what is going on. The clubs cannot do it, there is too much risk of a conflict of interest in that dreaded scenario. Not unless it was one club one vote but I can’t see the ‘big boys’ accepting that. An independent body is the only solution but that would mean the ‘powerbrokers’ giving up their influence and in a country that seems to revolve around who has what influence and ‘how can I use it’ that is not going to happen. One of the reasons why there is such a big problem here is that no one trusts anyone else. And in some cases you can’t blame them.

So, let me continue. The crux of this latest issue, is whether the league should be expanded to 20 teams. This in my view raises questions and issues but the three primary ones to me are these:-

1) If the plan was to increase the size of the PL to 20 why wasn’t it announced at the end of the previous season so that every club knew what was happening and allowing it to be implemented correctly at the end of the season just finished. Why? Answer please.

2) Who gets to benefit from such an increase in the number of teams to 20, who are the winners? That doesn’t need an answer. We can hazard a pretty good guess ourselves.

3) Why did they see the need to increase the size anyway? On what considered basis will it improve the standards in the PL and Thai football in general and thus of course on the national team (of which they currently hold the stewardship)? Answer please.

Ok, point 1. Why was the announcement made at the conclusion of the season and not before it commenced? As far as I can see there are only three possible answers to that question. Firstly, that they just ‘suddenly’ decided to make that change at the close of or very near the end of the last season. Now with the best will in the world I cannot accept that. I know, as I think we all do, that the Thai FA doesn’t seem to be blessed with an abundance of clear rational thinkers based on their previous and on-going decision making performances, but this? This level of mismanagement takes them to a staggering new level of incompetence. I don’t believe for one minute they can be that bad. So given that it is not just a management mistake what are the other two options? That someone, or some club is going to benefit or thirdly a group of clubs who will benefit from such a change. The question is who and how?

Point 2. The bottom three finished the season with TOT on 16 points, Port FC with 33 and BEC Tero with 35. BEC having the same number of points as Siam Navy and Saraburi but with an inferior goal difference. Therefore TOT, Port and BEC go down. Simple. This ignoring for a minute the outstanding issue that BEC have regarding a match against Bangkok United that is still unresolved. But then the decision is made to increase the size to 20 which effectively ‘saves’ Port and BEC. TOT, it is rumoured, are going to sue the TPL, though I don’t see that they have much chance of success. In the end they were well adrift and the only basis could be that no announcement was made prior to the season commencing. A very fair and relevant point of course and one that needs an answer, but would it have made a difference? Probably not.

Nevertheless it is an issue and they of course will pursue it and rightly so. Another ‘story’ circulating is that the bottom two teams have a ‘play-off’ to decide who stays up with BEC. That is a fundamentally flawed position as well. Why should Port have to play off with a team they finished 17 points clear of other than that they finished in the bottom 2 with TOT. If this was to be the case it should have been announced again before the season commenced. You can’t, at the end of a season, just suddenly announce a play-off to decide a relegation issue like that. And why a ‘play-off’ anyway? TOT were clearly bottom. That is an unacceptable solution, but now we have reached a stage where the FA don’t know how to quieten the various monsters they have created and are clutching at straws.

Normally in countries that are organized you could say ok refer to the governing body’s constitution and rule book. As it seems to be made up here as they go along that won’t work. Offering TOT the opportunity of a play off to save themselves might keep them quiet and stop any potential litigation but it certainly didn’t impress Madam Pang and her club, a position I can completely understand.

Expanding the league will save Port and BEC Tero which will solve the problem of the threats being made by BEC’s chairman. But it is an indictment of the Thai FA that they have to create ‘solutions’ to satisfy their mistakes and to satisfy the complaints from individual clubs and let themselves off the grossly mismanaged hook they have hung themselves from. So here is a question. Did the powers that be wait until the season finished so they could see who had been relegated and then make a change to save one or two of them. Why would they do that? Pressure from one or both of the clubs or from within? Do BEC and Port have that kind of influence? There has to be a reason if this is what the plan was. By being saved in such a way the implications are huge for both clubs but does one benefit more than the other?  Does anyone else benefit? And further, did either of the clubs know in advance this was the outcome? If so, who told them and who is powerful enough to make such a commitment?

Expanding the PL to 20 teams effectively saves 2 of the relegated teams, Port and BEC, so both receive the benefits, and are the recipient of a rather large ‘favour’. It also is a major benefit to some other clubs of course and might have little to do with Port or BEC. This conclusion is reached purely on the basis that this change was not announced before the start of the season which is a strong indicator that the implementation of any such change could have been ‘assisted’ by those actually relegated or it could have nothing to do with those two and have a wider implication involving others. The change then being made to either effect the survival of one or both of them, or for amother reason. If so, then this decision is nothing whatsoever to do with any ‘perceived’ benefit to Thai football or its premier league but more to do with a ‘helping hand given to one or both clubs or a group of them.

BEC are an interesting case. They are I understand suing the PL because Bangkok United allegedly named too many foreign players in their matchday squad, a match which if BEC had won would have saved them from relegation. The Chairman made a statement to the effect that he was going to dissolve the club unless it was resolved. BEC are considered an ‘important club’ in terms of Thai football having finished in the top 3 in eleven of the eighteen seasons. Too big to be allowed to go down? It appears though they have just carried on with their business despite these threats. If they were party to a change or were aware of what was happening it doesn’t seem to have manifested itself in their actions as a club, but Port FC have been very active. Are they to be relegated or not? Having 20 teams keeps them up. 18 sends them down. That might be over-simplifying it but that seems to be one of the issues at the centre of this.

Now let me ask readers with more knowledge than I about Thai football this question. Is it common for top, respected players to leave PL clubs and drop down a division, even given they may have been offered a big salary? I don’t know. If yes, then fine, but if no why did Cunha, a respected successful player in a top club, leave Chonburi to go to Port who would effectively be a division lower? Was he told in advance, it’s ok we won’t be going down? If so, by who? That is one question I would like an answer to. If, hypothetically, Port knew they were not going to be relegated in advance of everyone else due to the expansion of the PL, how did they find out? Who is powerful enough to make those promises to them? Who told them? Who else knew? And more importantly, why and for what reason? Why were the rest not informed?

Cunha I believe had made his decision before all this ‘hit the fan’. If Port knew and the player knew aren’t they both implicit in actions that imply deceit, given that other clubs didn’t know. So, did Port FC know in advance of the others? Madam Pang has announced that she knew nothing of any change until the day of the meeting which might not be totally accurate because everybody else knew something was ‘in the wind’. That was one of the purposes of the meeting. Maybe that is either inaccurate reporting or she meant something else, but she has refuted any advance knowledge of the FA’s decision. We have to accept what she says as being true. Nevertheless the finger of suspicion of some continues to point at Port FC, if only in the way they have been conducting their business in the close season given they have just been relegated. To divert this suspicion she needs to make more than a ‘statement’. She has to find another way of putting this skeleton back in the cupboard and maintaining her and her clubs integrity.

I had a situation at Queens Park Rangers in 1990 when an unidentified member of staff came out in support and alleging club support of Swindon Town, found guilty of illegal payments to players and relegated. The BBC crew turned up at Loftus Road with a deposition of Swindon supporters claiming QPR’s support for them and claiming the club had said that all clubs do that, which could have placed the club in a very precarious legal position. Swindon Town themselves, or then manager Ossie Ardiles, had not instigated this confrontation, it was the fans, but the situation had to be defused very quickly. It wasn’t easy and involved some very straight talking. She must do the same. Bring out the evidence to show she and the club knew nothing.

I have no personal axe to grind against Port FC. I like the club. I’ve been there twice and both times enjoyed the fans, (though I do wish they would sit down in the front of the main stand and not stand obscuring people’s views to a very close touchline), the stadium and the experience. The supporters vociferous, the facilities in the main ok, even if the place does need a bit of a clean-up. I like it there. It had a ‘football’ atmosphere. Madam Pang bought the club along with her husband (a politician I believe) and that is a good thing. It’s good for clubs to be owned by private individuals rather than the ‘officialdom’ that seems to rule a lot of football. I am sure the fans were delighted when she moved in. A successful businesswoman, always smiling, supporter of Thai women’s football, she is the right sort of person to get involved providing she uses her ‘business brain’. But unfortunately she is not experienced in football club management, how to improve it or what it’s really all about.

Like most of them I’m afraid. That much is evident from just going to a match, looking at their club profile and activity (or lack of it) talking to some fans there and seeing what is not being done. But that is another story. Would she hire someone with absolutely no experience of running an insurance company and then put them in charge of hers? Of course not. But that’s what she has effectively done at the football club by placing herself in the centre of operations. Her track record at the club so far in terms of hiring and firing is not so good either. You can put it down to inexperience in letting her emotions for the fans and the club and her desire to have a successful operation cloud common sense observed judgments. Chris Wright did the same thing at QPR. She’s not alone in making that mistake. I sympathize to an extent.

It is a very common mistake amongst owners. As an example of this, Gary Stevens, in my opinion, would have turned the playing fortunes round given the time. She didn’t see it. Influenced by the ever present ‘back chat’ that exists in football which an experienced person ignores, she reacted. It’s the same scenario as managers and head coaches persuaded by ‘agents’ or others to get a player in based on a video or recommendation. Any coach worth his salt will tell you no, and have a very good look himself first and make his own judgments. Inexperience. I saw the improvements defensively in a few short weeks and if they had a player who could have scored a few they would have won matches rather than losing so many 0-1. That was an owner not having a clear plan for the future reacting in an inexperienced, panic driven way, being influenced by others with personal agenda’s, having a desire to satisfy fans and get success, a reaction which so often occurs in similar situations.

It is the nature of the beast in football, especially for clubs that do not have a clear and determined operational plan for the future that does not rely on demanding ‘instant’ success but relies more on a vision for the future. This club has huge potential but it will remain untapped. She is a high-profile person and I am certainly not pointing any accusatory fingers. But it has to be asked did she know before the other clubs of the changes? If, and I say If, she did then that makes me smell a rat somewhere and there is another agenda here. As I say, I really don’t know.

Circumstances have come together to make it look like someone somewhere up the line has had a big influence in bringing in 20 teams. And with a quite staggering disregard for the consequences. It suits this ‘hidden agenda’, if there is one, whatever that may be. If this is all about that and Port FC did know then a head needs to roll at headquarters and Port FC questioned on why they agreed to keep it a secret. As I say pure conjecture. No accusations made, just questions that need to be answered for the good of football and for transparency. Why was the decision left until the season had finished? Was it to establish who finishes where before making the decision or even to offer some protection to a wider circle of friends?

If Port FC did not know of the impending changes then she is to be applauded for trying to build a very good team to race to promotion from Division 1 next year. To really build her club it could be though that she needs more than just a new set of players. But given that scenario it still does not explain why the Thai FA’s decision was left until the season had finished. Answers are needed. Honest ones. Thailand has a problem here. There are too many people involved with personal agenda’s it seems. Politicians, Army and Navy personnel, Police. Is it ever going to work? I doubt it. There are too many people who can if they choose, apply pressure to others to get things they require accomplished. It’s not going to change is it so where does that leave Thai football? Even some of the owners themselves appear to be shrouded in mystery and collusion. “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”. So wrote Sir Walter Scott in the poem ‘Marmion’.

Let’s just look at one further scenario regarding the position. Three clubs walked out of the meeting finding it unacceptable. What about the others? Buriram and Chonburi by their league position aren’t in any need of particular favours rendered by security of tenure in the PL are they?  Ratchaburi may also consider themselves ok but the rest? I should think Muangthong United were quietly pleased at Buriram’s and Chonburi’s departure. Every club from and including Nakhon Ratchasima, which includes Army United down, must have breathed a sigh of relief at an extension to 20. It gives them an extra two places to juggle with to avoid relegation for the new season. That may be the reason the ‘three’ didn’t get more support at the meeting because the others, the majority, were thinking “no, 20 is good for us, let them do it”

The attention is on BEC and to a greater extent Port FC but there are some others involved here as well that would be more than grateful for this ‘little favour’. The conjecture and finger pointing may not be being applied to the right people and BEC and especially Port are taking the flak. The rest smiling cynically. It still does not explain though why the announcement was left so late does it. Unless of course the Thai FA knew that it would get majority support, even if there would be a few abstentions and they thought it didn’t matter.

Point 3. Again my own personal opinion that is unlikely to be welcomed by some. The Thai football federation, like any governing body, is responsible for many things but principally these are a) to provide and manage an organized league and cup competitive structure, b) To improve standards at club and national level. c) to negotiate, receive and allocate national sponsorship and TV income funding honestly, without favour and transparently and d) to create a structure and format that allows clubs to grow and develop. So are they doing this?

Do they function efficiently with any of those? Please stop laughing...this is serious!

Let’s deal with ‘c’ first. Some rules to begin. No director or official directly or indirectly linked to any club, family ties included, or is in the employ of any club or club representative, inside or outside football can be on any committee that handles this allocation of funds or decisions made regarding funding income. That is it. Full stop, no exceptions! Clubs need to be told the ‘total’ income from all sources. TV, sponsorships, etc., verified independently by the sponsors and then each club receive an account annually of the dispersions made and to whom and why. The only additions being the live matches so it’s easy to run.

The clubs will be allowed to raise questions and discuss but will not be allowed to interfere. A base percentage figure awarded, the same for all PL clubs, and a lower figure for Division 1 clubs incremented by further payments for matches actually televised. A ‘prize pot’ for distribution to winners and runners-up and maybe 3rd and 4th in the league, a percentage kept back to assist with regional league development and a very small percentage kept for federation running costs. Ok, that’s dealt with. Not that difficult is it. But it seems to be.

Penalties- any individual found breaking the rules a 10 year ban from all football activity. Clubs somehow involved but found guilty, relegation and a big fine that will hurt them and make them think twice.

Finally, a), b) and d)-expand the league to 20. Why? Will it improve standards in the PL? Definitely not. Expanding it actually decreases the standards. The PL should have 16 clubs only. That will improve standards because every week the opposition will provide a higher level of competition. It will also allow more rest time for those selected for international duty, thus aiding the development of the national team and of course helping the clubs. If more than two players are selected from a Division 1 club allow them a postponement.

Two Division One leagues of 18 each, a north and south so cutting down travel costs for clubs in a less fortunate financial position allowing them to spend that money on development. Four down from the PL and two up to the PL  from each Division 1 each season. Implement that and see who screams the loudest. Then you might have an idea if someone in this little group, who didn’t also walk out is being protected.. Below Division 1 level a structure of regional leagues, 4 for each division with promotion and relegation and a structure below that for amateur clubs with ambition that does not include ‘who you know’ or how much is in the ‘brown envelope’.
Closing arguments.

It was not a last minute decision to suggest going to 20. Even the Thai FA for all their failings are not that bad. They have known for some time but didn’t announce it. They waited until it suited their agenda whatever that is, knowing they would receive a majority support from the clubs and allowing for a few dissenting voices.

It is not about improving standards because having more teams in the PL will only lower the standards. Therefore it has been done to protect someone, an individual club or a group of clubs. Let’s start by having a look at the 3 really involved. BEC Tero? Well some might consider them ‘too big’ to go down, and keeping them up does save any litigation about the Bangkok United situation. It will quieten the Chairman, threatening, but I suspect not really meaning to, dissolve the club. Keeping them up has its positive’s in the Thai FA’s eyes. But the actions the club were undertaking indicates they knew nothing. They didn’t have a clue, though were obviously delighted when they heard. TOT, not really involved, they were down anyway. Noises being made about a ‘play-off’ purely made to try and quieten them down.

So from the visible benefactors of the change that leaves us with Port FC. No, I don’t think so. I think it is remotely possible she knew something ‘might’ happen, maybe just a whisper in a corridor, but that is not the same as being actually ‘told’ and therefore making her implicit, and allows her to say she was not told. She hadn’t been.

Cunha, maybe needed a change and offered a fat salary and the chance to become a ‘hero’ in a successful season to come. A recognizable deceit by Port? No, I don’t think so, just the recipient of some rather good fortune. We must remember, she is an astute businesswoman and a very good one (outside of football, with respect to her). She would have known that getting involved in something like this, if later exposed, could finish her as a potential future leader at the FA, which she might be, and in football generally, and do damage to a club she obviously cares for. This is one smart business lady. She ‘may’ have used any ‘hearsay’ information she latched on to for her club’s benefit, and if so, as I remarked earlier, then more than a statement is required. I say ‘may’. After all, this ‘rumour of the 20’ has been around a while now. A bit of experienced firefighting is called for from Port FC.

Aggressive public relations that sends out a very clear message to accusers. It has been interesting to read on twitter and facebook some of the comments. Madam Pang certainly seems to invite comment, but whether you love her or loathe her it is irrelevant. Quite frankly to some I have read it might be more appropriate and productive if they were to direct their negativity at the clubs they support, some of whose ethical behaviour is firmly in the gutter. Quite often though in situations of chaos, the position is exacerbated by deflecting the blame away from the real culprits on to others, keeping any involvement away from the people who are going to be the real ‘winners’. A common and well used tactic. Keeps everybody confused and considering the wrong issues.

So where does that leave us? With a group of clubs quite keen on preserving their PL status, or Lee Harvey Oswald. As the latter has already received his fair share of unfairly apportioned blame, and isn’t around anyway I look at the former. Clubs possibly sounded out as to their potential support for such a change and very happy to accept the rewards, significant as they are, whilst being allowed to distance themselves from it.  Which is why the ‘three’ did not get mass support.

A group of clubs with rather a  lot to gain and nothing to lose from having ‘20’ and a governing body serving the needs of those it chooses or even worse, must. Why expand the league to 20, who benefits, who has the power to make it happen? I would think there are a lot of very happy people knowing that their PL lifelines have just been given a significant boost. Directly implicit in the decision or not. And if at the end of this coming season three of the clubs who had been loyal to ‘their’ FA and supported the change were relegated then watch for an announcement from the FA that the PL is being increased to 24 clubs. To improve standards of course!

If this is all above board then why was the announcement not made before the last season commenced? It wasn’t which can only lead to one conclusion.

Ethical values similar to FIFA? I think so. And we know what is happening to them. And if it happened to them it could happen to anybody.

Another tangled web to unravel.