The news did produce the kind of attention he must have been craving, because now people have something to talk about apart from his frozen assets and multiple corruption cases.

The announcement of the deal at this particular point in time, though, is intriguing. It shows he must be caught in a very tight position, deep trouble indeed. The Assets Examination Committee, the Department of Special Investigation and the National Counter Corruption Commission are bombarding Thaksin and his family with continuous investigations and are tracking down their assets.

It may be that a clear defence on his part of all of the corruption and tax-evasion cases had become "mission impossible" and he therefore needed to employ his familiar diversionary tactic of going international with something big.

With their large fan base in Thailand, the former leader's earlier proposals to buy Liverpool and Fulham football clubs drew vast interest among the public. It proved to work well back then, but unfortunately for him it is not working as well in this latest attempt.

Just like the boy who cried wolf too often, Thaksin has been unable to attain the desired wow effect with his Manchester City announcement. We have seen these flashy headlines far too often to fall into his trap this time.

Moreover, what good would it do Thailand? It's just another story about a millionaire buying a team. Thaksin's ever-loyal lawyer Noppadon Pattama tried to convince by saying that the deal paved the way for Thai youth to step into the Premier League, Thai singers might get to perform at the stadium during certain matches and Thai food could be served to fans as well.

A golden opportunity for Thailand to showcase its talents and create a good image! Yet isn't it too little too late after all the turmoil he's plunged the country into? It sounds like a lame excuse. It's his own image that he cares about, not that of the country.

Besides, who tarnished Thailand's image in the first place? Five full years of unimaginable corruption, tax evasion, weakening of independent agencies and extrajudicial killings are part of his controversial legacy. The worst part is he has left the country divided as never before. Any good leader with the nation's interest in mind would have done the honourable thing and stepped down to unite the country.

Owning a football club would put Thaksin in the international spotlight, but it might also turn into an international nightmare for him since he has to pass a "fit and proper person" test by the Premier League before the takeover becomes final.

What a lot of Thais would like to know is where he got his cash from for the deal. Just like his other financial transactions, it's unexplainable. Is the money part of the sum that the AEC is looking for in connection with the freezing of Bt7.3 billion worth of assets?

Thaksin should also be quizzed on good governance and whether the pathetic excuse of him having made an "honest mistake" will be made to avoid future responsibility the way it was with the asset-concealment case in 2001.

A psychiatric check is also strongly recommended, because his past record shows that saying one thing and doing another has become the norm for him. He said he loved Thailand but hired a US lobby group that attacked Thailand. He said he had really quit politics but keeps threatening to come back.

It's a pity that Manchester City may be brought into the fray of Thai politics, because even if the takeover is approved by the Premier League, the numerous charges filed against the former dear leader, which may take years to try, will always haunt the club.

The burden is now on him to prove his innocence.

Evidence gathered from related agencies suggests otherwise, and more will come to light in the months ahead.

The only benefit that Manchester City fans might get out of this is that apart from watching football, they'll also get to watch a real-life drama, with twists and turns that would amuse even Ian Fleming or Agatha Christie unfolding before their eyes.

Manchester City needs cash, and Thaksin needs a diversion at home, but in the end it's not certain who is actually saving who or whether either side will be saved at all.

 Veenarat Laohapakakul