New! Five Asides - Issue No.8: 2023

Here's issue number 8 of our popular 'Five Asides' feature. Take five Thai football fans, share five contentious opinions with them and let them all have their say. Nice and simple. Our panel today is James (Port), Isaac (Khon Kaen Utd), Kevin (Port), Jamie (Buriram Utd), and  Ian ("An interested observer"). 

1. Club owners should be allowed to sit on the team bench for matches. 

James: Without a doubt, the answer to this is a strong NO, though you can throw a few expletives in there too. I’d go further, and say that any form of communication (such as earpieces for head coaches) should be banned too. The point of having a head coach is to give them the tools to do their job, and if they fail… they fall on their sword. To sit on the bench alongside them, tell them what to do, and (in Port’s case) sack the head coach when things don’t go to plan… it’s comical. A while back there was a picture of a head coach explaining a tactical change to his owner before the change was made, and to me, it sums up part of what's wrong in Thai football.

Going even further into this (sorry) but remove the GM’s from sitting on the bench too. If they're not a player, or a member of the coaching staff: they shouldn’t be on the bench. If the Thai League wants to continue to look like an amateur competition, by all means, allow owners and other people who’ve no purpose being there to sit on the bench.

Isaac: I'm generally ok with it, depending on their level of involvement with the FA 😉 

I'd rather see them on the bench than in an air-conditioned VIP box. Also, shoutout to Watthana Changlao (Khon Kaen United owner) for often venturing out to the cheap seats, he sat right behind me at last year's match vs Buriram.

Kevin W: Of course. The owners are the ones signing players, telling the coach who should start, giving the team talks, paying the refs, and appearing on club promotional posters. They have every right to be on the bench. The coach is only a bit of window-dressing, fulfilling the ridiculous league requirement of having someone with an actual coaching licence on the sidelines.

Jamie: Hell yeah. They paid for the team they should be able to encourage their players from close quarters.

Ian: Absolutely not. In my opinion it's these egotistical owners who are holding back the development of Thai football. Sure, they pump the money in (or at least that's what they want us to believe), but they should leave the coaching to those who are qualified to do it. Sit in the stands or build yourselves a nice little VIP box to watch the match from, but keep well away from the technical area...please!

2. League Cup ties should revert to the original two leg format – including the final. 

James: For the quarter-final stage and beyond, I’d agree. For the earlier stages, not so much. To add the cost of traveling for a tie they (probably) won’t fare too well in, it’d be harsh to ask Thai League 3 teams to travel. What I’d like changed, in the earlier stages at least, is if a team from Thai League 2 or Thai League 3 draw a team from Thai League 1, they automatically get the home tie, irrespective of the order the tie is drawn.

Not only is it additional revenue for their club, but it gives their fans (and players) a bumper tie at home against a club they may never face in league action. 

Isaac: I'd be in favor of two legs for all rounds except for the final. It's a great chance for teams like Uthaithani last week to see some of the big teams like Buriram come to town and then also have a chance to make the trip to see some of the other grounds. Having two legs would guarantee having the chance for fans to do both. Still waiting for our reverse fixture at home against Chiangmai.

Kevin W: I'm not a fan of two-legged fixtures, as they reduce the possibility of cupsets. However, I've also never really seen the point of secondary cup competitions either. Have single or two-legged fixtures in all or some of the rounds for all I care, but the final must be a one-off match at a neutral venue.

Jamie: Why not? We need more football days and the away trips are great fun. I’m sure FIFA will happily delete some of their match days to accommodate the Thai League.

Ian: The League Cup appears to be the poor relation of the FA Cup, which isn't the greatest competition itself. Therefore, I think it needs to do something to distinguish it from its sister tournament. I think two legged matches in the early rounds would be a waste of time, however, I'd like to see this format adopted from the quarter finals onwards, and including the final. We'd see some great games then. 

3. There should be a SEA Super League, featuring the top clubs from each of the countries in the region. 

James: No thanks, we already have the pointless Suzuki Cup (or whatever it’s now called) for the national teams, there's no need to add a club competition to the mix too. I remember in the past there was the Mekong Cup in pre-season, which was supposed to feature the league champions of each league along the Mekong river, but that eventually fell by the wayside. Maybe a pre-season tournament that involves the league winner from each league would suffice, but even then… it’d still be a mickey mouse tournament.

Isaac: No, I'm out on all forms of Super Leagues.

Kevin W: Now that the AFC Champions League & AFC Cup competitions have restructured, I think an ASEAN Super League would only work as a money-spinning tournament at the end of the season. The format would resemble the AFF Cup; 10 league champions drawn into two groups of five (if needed, playoffs between the country(s) with the worst group stage record the previous year vs the previous year's playoff loser country(s) would be used to reduce the field to 10). Each group would be based in one nation, followed by two legged-semis and finals.

Jamie: It’s pointless as Buriram United would dominate it the same way they dominate at home. 

Ian: Don't we already have AFC competitions for this kind of thing? I'm not in favour of this idea at all. Each of the SEA nations should be working hard to improve their own leagues. Most of them, including Thailand, still have a very long way to go in this respect. A Super League shouldn't even be up for discussion at this juncture.

4. All TPL grounds should have a minimum 10,000 all seater capacity stadium. 

James: Strong disagree. With that being said, 10,000 all-seater capacity stadiums would be a much better look for the league than the largely empty 20-25,000 capacity stadiums currently in the league. Going off on a tangent here (apologies), but as I said in a reply to a tweet by Phil the other day, I'm firmly of the view that if the stadium isn't fit for purpose, teams should be forced to forfeit the opportunity to promote from Thai League 2. If it's quick fixes, by all means let them go up, but the situation involving Lamphun this season is simply unacceptable.

The league (clubs included) needs to do a much better job of getting their product out there, and despite the ticket revenue probably not having much effect on their bottom line, most Thai League 1 clubs should be embarrassed with their attendance figures. They should be asking why their fans are staying away, whilst engaging their local community to try and “recruit” fans, and so on. At the end of the day, it’s just not good enough in my opinion.

Isaac: If we are talking minimum, I think 10,000 is too high, there are too many teams that struggle to even draw 2,500. I'd sooner say that 10,000 should be a maximum (outside of Buriram and BG of course). I'd rather see a 5,000-seat stadium at 50% capacity than a 10,000-seat stadium at 25% capacity. There's been rumblings of Khon Kaen exploring the possibility of a new stadium, but I wouldn't want it to be much bigger than the current one (around 7,000 I think). Just give me the same capacity but no running track please. I think something like PAT Stadium and/or whatever Ratchaburi's stadium is called these days would be perfect. (without the giant smiley face painted on the seats).

Kevin W: I like the idea of all-seater stadia, but all seats should have backs (yes, Thepsahadin & Thunderdome, I'm looking at you). As a regular attendee of clubs who play(ed) in grounds that are/were far too big for their following, I'd rather see teams play at grounds intimate enough to generate a great atmosphere, that can then be adapted to accept the increased attendance this atmosphere attracts. One hard and fast rule, though: no running tracks.

Jamie: They should have retractable seats so that when Buriram United come to town all the fans can get in. Other match days they can reduce to 5,000 and fill the seats.

Ian: Thai league grounds and crowds amuse me. You have Bangkok Utd's few dozen fans rattling round in a 25,000 seater stadium and most of the others less than half full each week. Rather than having a limit on stadium size, why not make more of an effort to bring in fans to the grounds that already exist? This would make more sense. Although I guess in Bangkok Utd's case, it's a pretty hopeless case.

5. The TPL should introduce end of season relegation play offs – featuring the bottom eight teams – to determine which four should go down.

James: It’d be an interesting concept, but I feel that the bottom-2 should automatically go down, and there be a playoff between 13TH and 14TH to decide the final spot. If you finish bottom, you deserve to go down, and a relegation playoff where you could almost get a ‘get out of jail free’ card wouldn’t sit right with me to be honest.

Isaac: No thanks, that would be too stressful for me 😅. If it's as many as 8 teams my team would likely be in it every year. I'd be more interested in something like what the Bundesliga or Ligue 1 have with the 3rd from the bottom team playing against the 3rd place 2nd division team or the winner of a 3rd-6th place promotion playoff.

Kevin W: This would give the also-rans something to do at the end of the season, while the top teams are busy with cup finals and ASEAN Super League fixtures. There would also be the benefit of an intense and hectic transfer market, as players, agents and managers would be deep into the "off-season" before they knew which division they were playing the following season. To make these playoffs more interesting, I'd suggest a couple of extra rules:

1) A maximum of, let's say two matches, where the chairman or any club offical may produce a gun to change a decision or match outcome. For safety reasons, this may only be done post-match, or at least post-walkoff.

2) However, if firearms are produced by officials of both clubs at the same match, the referee's decision(s) and match outcome remain unchanged.

Jamie: Isn’t that just called the regular season?

Ian: Yes. Anything that sparks interest in the league has to be a good idea. It seems to have gone stale in the last couple of years (The Covid affect?) and desperately needs something to get people excited again. With so much at stake, I expect we'd see some great games. And you could get some "big" clubs dragged into it - which would be fun. I'm all for this.

Please note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of each individual and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the blog. Thank you.