CosbehFox

I appreciate this. One of the current conversations is how does all this activity manifest. It’s a good example of how it can. There’s been mixed reports of Everton’s FAB. The format is really good in terms of numbers and reps but apparently they get limited coverage in front of the club. I can’t correspond the latter tho

There was and still is a campaign to change that though. When the option was given, to alter that there was not enough votes to make changes to that It’s why tomorrow is a welcome change to see people showing some energy to a cause

Fair enough. Id welcome to hear how people think it should be done differently. Me and RYM consistently exchange opinions and that’s healthy because it gives me an another view. As for the latter, that’s dictated by those who make themselves available. Like a lot of fan organisations. Please put the membership forms for your left toe in though

Appreciate that. I have privately said there’s a big onus on me and others whom have come from reform onto the board to illustrate some kind of change for a whole raft of reasons. We also need keep the fresh blood coming. Id say one of the big factors is a lack of direct discussion and engagement with members. There’s things I want to do to change that.

Be good if you can PM or link any example

That can be effectively changed if people want to put the time and effort into it.

No, having sat in the room at mu first board meeting. You’d be lucky if the club even turn the heating on

I’ll step in here and I might get told off but I want people to understand the thinking and provide some context. I’m genuinely interested as a new board member to understand motives and get the feedback in how people want the Trust to follow. The Trust contacted the club post Fulham home with a whole series of concerns. I can vouch that these concerns were pretty much monumentally shared by the fanbase. PSR, strategy, planning etc. As a result of that contact, the opportunity to have a meeting and conversations opened up. It’s highly frustrating that the nature of FAB means the content of those conversations have to remain private. The board felt that there was a need to illustrate that the Trust was holding the club to account. Now there’s a whole argument about the balancing act of maintaining communication with the club and not. It’s a thorny subject where you can argue either way. Retrospectively the timing is clumsy and off but we wanted to give an update as opposed to silence when the accusation is often the Trust are doing nothing. Genuinely I want to hear people’s views but I want people to understand that there’s a genuine attempt to get over the feeling of the fanbase to the club. As a new board member, it’s an area which massively needs improving that engagement of its own members, making sure you are heard, happy to be PM’d here. The ideas that the Trust receive any favourable benefit is minimal, other than free hosting of events, which has a community society in a central Leicester location, you’d want to take advantage of

I wish that was the case. Be lucky if you get some water

I can assure you that the general concerns brought to the table towards the club were pretty much the consistent issues we see across the fanbase. It’s up for people to device if it’s better that people know some dialogue is occurring or if it’s better for the Trust not to comment at all. We will take on board what the wider fanbase want

In what way? Tete was a gamble which didn’t cost us a lot. No harm in that. Which is Ric’s point

Unless he’s planning on having his jet make an overnight trip from Japan, he won’t be there

You mean like when we played Yeovil in the Championship under the ownership of King Power

That the statement mentions the PSR issues but makes no attachment of accountability. If there was some responsibility attributed to the issue, I’d have personally had some comfort that the club are actively looking to alter their methods.

He’s ex MK Dons. It’s so befitting.

Well the story changes from the club half way though. They originally accuse of setting off a flare. Claiming CCTV evidence Upon the appeal, the club accuse Dan of assisting the setting of a flare. Their justification is the concealment of identity - that’s the evidence in the end. Not the CCTV as originally said

The fact Union FS are happy for a discussion and the club don’t want it speaks volumes. They don’t want to know the person who let it off. Having 7 banned is better than 1

The very essence of those programme notes suggest this campaign is working.

Corporate nonsense. I knew they’d try something tonight. A statement telling us nothing about nothing

You've ignore the key wording though at the club's only admittance, 'On the balance of probability' The probability of what? Of being close to the incident

It's within the article. Up to the individual, some members of trust will be protesting tomorrow and discussions have been had with club at all levels recently.

Unsurprisingly in RL fashion, there is no further news on this. Again unsurprisingly in RL fashion, Broncos are no better off and proposed Australian investment is looking unlikely

The occasional 'arm wrestle' at RL is superb. Proper tension but I couldn't watch it every week

This is it really. There is part of him which is so impressive in that he has the measure of the squad's personality and the restrictions of the regime. But he keeps making huge errors.

Cliff Ginnetta’s quote in there is simply sensational ‘We are supporters, so we back the club no matter what.’ He then eludes to a series of meetings he went to and chat it out. Which did exactly nothing despite his own daughter absolutely catching lcfc out on the £25 charge. Despite that, he doesn’t understand the moaning. How can a bloke with at best a supporters club of 60, keep being quoted repeatedly