Foxes Trust Reform

It was confirmed at last night's Foxes Trust AGM that our campaign to reform the Foxes Trust has been successful as Chris Rice, Jack Munton, Steve Potter and Andrew Smith have been elected onto the board (giving us 7 out of the 11 current board members). This brings to an end almost two years of work to reach this point and we are so excited about the opportunity this gives us to push the Trust forward so that it represents the right issues for LCFC fans and challenges the club where it is under-performing (of which there are many areas right now). We wanted to say a huge 'thank you' to everyone that has supported us thus far and big 'please support us' to those who have not yet got behind our campaign or the Trust to-date. Make no mistake, the Trust is in new hands now. Those that have been in place for many many years are no longer on the board and the majority of board members now involved became so because they felt the Trust could be doing better and doing more (criticisms many fans have had are criticisms they once held too but have got involved to help fix). We'll do everything in our power to build a Trust that Leicester City fans need and that the club cannot ignore. If you would like to show your support, the best thing you can do right now is to become a member (adults £5, concessions £2.50, under 18 free) - the more members we have, the more weight our voice will hold. We wrote a piece for The Fosse Way published today which tells the story of our campaign and the long journey we have taken to get to this point (shared below): A New Dawn For The Foxes Trust Today marks the first day of a new Foxes Trust. It was confirmed at the Trust AGM that Chris Rice, Jack Munton, Andrew Smith and Steve Potter have all been elected to the board – giving us a majority on the board with seven out of the eleven board members coming from our campaign (after Becky Taylor, Harry Gregory and Jamie Barnard joined the board a year ago). Getting to this point has been a journey. It was in March 2024 that a few of us attended a Union FS Fans’ Forum at Duffy’s Bar and heard about the struggles they faced engaging with the Club. One of the key realisations on the night was that, because Union FS didn’t have official Supporters Trust status, it was quite easy for the Club to dismiss them. Attention turned to the Foxes Trust: they did have this, so how were they using it to represent the issues most important to Leicester City fans? We’d heard about the list of questions they’d submitted to the Club following our relegation from the Premier League in the 2022/23 season, but they wouldn’t share what those questions were and the Club appeared to bat them away. At the same time, the role of Supporters Trusts was becoming increasingly important with changing government legislation. The management of our Club, on and off the field, was (and still is) inadequate – alleged PSR breaches, player trading issues, poor managerial decisions, questionable sponsorships and woeful fan engagement. We needed a Supporters Trust that could challenge the club and hold it to account. Was our Trust fit for purpose? Scrutiny of the Trust was beginning to build online too and the Trust was seen by many fans as a joke. So we got people together, attended the upcoming Trust AGM and found that the Trust was too cosy, too tired and too timid. We could see it needed reform. And that for people to join it – and give it real weight with the Club – people needed to feel it was a Trust worthwhile joining. A couple of hundred people gathered in the Press Suite at Seagrave with the Club at the back of the room and Ricardo rolled out for a Q&A, during which he was asked questions like whether he’d been for a walk at Foxton Locks and whether he’d tried Indian cuisine. When the floor was opened to questions from Trust members, they centred on things like toilet signage at the stadium rather than what the Trust was doing to hold the club to account. Things had to change. We drew together a few areas where we felt the Trust could do better. Things like building a bigger and more diverse membership by having a better online presence, moving the considerable funds that were sat in the Trust bank account earning miniscule interest to an account that would generate more funds that could be used for the benefit of members and LCFC fans, improve partnership with other fan groups and re-evaluate focus areas to do something on issues like safe-standing. Following the home match with West Bromwich Albion on 20th April, Harry Gregory and Jamie Barnard met with Trust board members Lynn Wyeth and Ian Bason to share our vision for where the Trust could improve and, with three spaces open on the board, asked them to co-opt us on (having completed a Skills Assessment we were asked to complete) so that we could help. The board discussed, and refused. We were offered the opportunity to join working groups that worked on things before they were passed up to board where all major decisions were taken. We declined, as we knew the only way we could truly transform the Trust was at board level – however some members of our campaign did join the working groups to start trying to have an impact. Feedback we gathered from them painted a frustrating picture where the board made all the decisions and hampered progress. Simon Grindrod from our campaign met with Ian Bason to discuss the proposed structure for the Fan Engagement Framework and Fan Advisory Board. We felt it allowed the Club too much control and would deliver very little in its proposed format. People in our campaign with professional experience in football shared the same opinion: the Trust should not sign up to it and instead refuse to go along with what the Club wanted. This was ignored. Perhaps the existing board members didn’t realise we weren’t scary or unreasonable people and that we just wanted better for the Trust and, by extension, Leicester City fans? We offered to speak with every board member directly to get to know each other better. Some agreed, some declined. Still no offer to fill vacant board positions, however. The next AGM rolled around and we managed to fill the three board positions via an uncontested election which saw Becky, Harry and Jamie join the board. At the same time, we proposed a motion to change the rules of the Trust – there was no mechanism outside of a disciplinary procedure to remove an ineffective or largely inactive board member. The board (prior to Becky, Harry and Jamie joining) advised the membership to vote against this rule change. It won a majority vote in the ballot of members but not quite the 75% in favour required to pass – so board members who were doing very little had a free pass to continue doing so. It would be the next AGM in early 2026 at which we’d really have the opportunity to get more people onto board so Becky, Harry and Jamie got to work on the inside of the Trust. They managed to achieve a few good things (with the support of some great volunteers in the working groups): a restructure of the working groups meant that there was more accountability for work to happen and board members had to participate membership fees were (after some pushback) eventually reduced a charity initiative was launched Union FS collaborated with the Trust on a few things (such as the statement against the BC Game sponsorship) the tone and frequency of the Trust got stronger the End of Season Survey gathered 3,200+ responses and was covered by national media and shared directly with the Club But we still faced challenges. Board members who wanted to tone down the communications or have a say in every piece produced by the Communications working group, others who didn’t think there was much wrong with how the Club was operating, those heavily involved in the creation of the Fan Engagement Framework failing to see its flaws and minimal support with the End of Season Survey (with the exception of Matt Davis, Lynn Wyeth and Paul Rains). One board member started to bypass the Communications working group entirely. So around came an opportunity to take full control of the Trust board as four vacant positions were available at this election. Legacy board members wanted to continue, again seemingly resistant to more from our campaign becoming involved at board level. But the membership has spoken: all four Foxes Trust Reform candidates have been elected, and it wasn’t even close. We now have a huge opportunity to push the Trust on and we will take it. There has been some scaremongering about our campaign by legacy board members desperately trying to cling onto their positions. That we’ll walk away from engaging with the Club, that we’ll make the Trust a protest group, that we have unscrupulous intentions with Trust funds. All complete nonsense. But we do want to see the Fan Engagement Framework delivering more and will tell the Club this. We are aware that the Trust may need to be ready to play a role in fan action if the decline and mismanagement of our Club continues. And we will make sure that the membership fees people pay to the Trust are used to support our community, our fan base and our membership. Think about the progress we have made with three out of twelve on the board – and imagine what we can now do with seven out of eleven (Alan Digby has resigned from the board, leaving a vacancy). We acknowledge the role that the likes of Ian Bason, Matt Davis, Sarah Hubbard and Alan Digby have played for many years in keeping the Trust running. It’s no stretch to say that, without people like them, we might not even have had a Trust to reform. So while we didn’t believe they were what the Trust needed right now, and they were in many ways resistant to our campaign, we do want to recognise the service they gave to the Trust and they are, even if they might not share the same concerned view on the current state of the Club, fellow Leicester City fans after all. Thank you to them all. Hours of work has been poured into the last couple of years and we want to thank everyone who has supported us along the way. Those who signed up to the Trust when we first asked people to come and support our efforts and those who renewed their membership when we realised it would take more than a year to get to this point. There have also been platforms that have been incredibly supportive of us as well: The Fosse Way, the Big Strong Leicester Boys Podcast and Foxestalk forum. Thank you all. Now, we need the support of every Leicester City fan. Like many of you, we have criticised the Trust in the past. Many of us had given up on it or thought it had become a bit of a laughing stock. As of today, this is a new Trust, with new people in charge that are willing and able to get it where it needs to be. So please put to one side your preconceptions of the Trust, judge it on what it does from now onwards and not what it did or didn’t do in the past (or how the Club engaged with and responded to it), support us in whatever way you can. This journey, and result, does also show what happens when fans come together and be the change they wish to see. One of the biggest challenges we see across the fan base right now is apathy, but if a few people who want better can organise and play their part in taking action, things can change. We’ll be retiring our Foxes Trust Reform social media and message board accounts now. It’s full steam ahead with 100% focus and attention on the Trust.

And this would have been fine. You are allowed to state your own case as to why you should be re-elected and you are not a current Trust board member (who are held to a certain standard during the election period as a result of being a board member). What you're not allowed to do is appear on a fan channel/podcast under the auspices of the Trust, provide voting advice guidance/advice by warning against your fellow candidates and at no point state that this is just your personal opinion. Ian Bason knew the rules. Ian Bason broke the rules. Ian Bason gained an advantage in the election. Doesn't it speak volumes that other candidates turned down opportunities to appear on shows in order to ensure they didn't break any rules yet Ian Bason, a current board member, did not?

This is true. But it's also not really something that needs proving in this case. The rules state that if a board member provides any opinion on candidate suitability they must express that this is their personal opinion: Ian Bason did not. The rules state that campaigning under the auspices of the Trust is not permissible: the interview was promoted as "Ian Bason from the Foxes Trust" and Ian Bason spoke at length as a representative of the Trust (providing insights and updates that only a Foxes Trust board member could give) and he then went on, as a candidate himself, to comment on the suitability of other candidates he was up against for re-election. Did any of the other candidates have the opportunity to go on a podcast as a representative of the Trust, speak about their role in the work the Trust is doing and warn against other candidates getting elected? All whilst at no point stating this was their personal opinion as the rules clearly state one must? Of course they did not. They have been disadvantaged due to Ian Bason's campaigning and if he is re-elected it casts a stain on the Foxes Trust and the integrity of this election process.

The email shared above by @Jackubu is the one that was sent to all those who registered a complaint confirming the decision of the Election Management Group (which as the email states is comprised of Jim Wheeler from the Rams Trust, Alan Digby and Colin Phillips). As you can see, the email states that they "consulted with the Football Supporters Association on matters of policy before giving this decision" and in other correspondence Jim has said "the Election Management Group made their decision after consultation with the FSA". Our case against Ian Bason for campaigning set out a number of points at which we believe he campaigned against Foxes Trust Reform candidates - with direct quotes and time stamps - and that at no point did he express he was giving his personal opinion (which according to the Election Policy he must do). This is why we believe he broke at least one, but most likely two, election rules. In response to the feedback from Jim, we asked for two things to help understand the decision: 1) A timestamp on the video where we could verify Ian Bason stating that he was giving his personal opinion 2) The guidance provided by the FSA so that we could see how they had interpreted the case We were not provided with either bits of evidence requested and so we contacted the FSA direct to ask what the guidance provided was seeing as it wasn't forthcoming from either Jim/the EMG. The FSA responded to confirm that they had not given a perspective on the specific case, they had simply given the Trust guidance on how to apply their own Election Rules. At best, the inference that the FSA had been involved when responding to the case against Ian Bason was clumsy. At worst, it was an attempt to give credibility to the decision by implying the FSA had reviewed and given their perspective. Having not had any further clarification from Jim/the EMG, and being told that any further questions needed to go to the FSA (as we had already done), we escalated our complaint to the Trust Co-Chairs as we believe the handling of this case risks huge reputational damage to the Trust and harms the credibility of the election. In that email, we countered the specific points given in the adjudication from the EMG (Jim, Alan and Colin): "Mr. Bason was invited on to the independent podcast to be interviewed (he did not initiate this as has been alleged)" - irrelevant: it doesn't matter how he came to appear, just that he broke the rules when he did "He was introduced as a member of Foxes Trust, and then introduced himself as a supporter firstly and then gave a brief history of Foxes Trust and his own roles. He has been a long established member of the Trust Board and former chair, so will naturally be associated with the Foxes Trust by most listeners" - irrelevant: it doesn't matter whether he shared his history of being a supporter or not, he was positioned as a Trust representative and spoke about matters in detail that he could only comment on as a Trust board member (and as the FAB rep). Most importantly, at no point did he state he was not there to represent the Foxes Trust. "We do not believe he initiated the discussion on the election or the 'Reform Group', he was answering questions from the hosts and did not state that he was representing the Trust Board in his responses" - irrelevant: who initiated the discussion is not a factor here, he should have declined to answer or have been explicit in saying the views were his own. As a candidate, the onus is on him to know the rules and say he is not representing the Trust Board (which if he does not is quite fair to assume when he is appearing on a podcast and talking extensively about Trust matters) "The fact that this discussion took place more than half way through an interview of over 1 hour would indicate that this was not the primary motivation or intent behind the interview - and many listeners / viewers would not have got this far through the podcast if the intention was solely to gain a specific advantage in the election" - irrelevant: the interview is available publicly and people can watch as much or as little as they choose. His intentions are not measured by at which point in the podcast he contravened the rules "When discussing the Reform Group intentions, Mr. Bason clearly stated it was HIS view, (as opposed to the view of the FT Board)" - we have asked for a time stamp of this but are yet to be provided with it, can you provide one? "He also clearly stated he believes having the Reform Group on the Board is a positive and the positive aspects of their involvement" - he does but he also cautions against more of them, he should not be cautioning against fellow candidates (which is where is campaigning against standing for election) "At no point did Mr. Bason name any other candidate, or in fact even specifically indicate that he was a candidate" - irrelevant: names were not publicly available at this point, but the election period was underway "We are aware that other podcasts have been issued with the 'Reform Group' stating opposing opinions. It would therefore be unfair if Mr. Bason (or any other existing Board member) were unable to give personal opinions because of their existing position/role" - irrelevant: no other candidates have appeared on any podcasts during the election period and campaigned against fellow candidates. If they have, they should be disqualified. As you can see, many of the points above are completely irrelevant and the judgement here is not being made purely and objectively against rules 6.1 and 6.6. We will keep pursuing this case. Ian Bason used that appearance, and his position within the Trust, during the election period, to warn against a vote for Chris, Jack, Andrew and Steve (as Foxes Trust Reform supported candidates). He must be disqualified. If the Trust are reviewing this objectively they must be able to evidence that a rule break has not occurred and be satisfied that if a candidate were to warn others against voting for fellow candidates again in an election period it would be ok. If they can't, they must put aside personal relationships with Ian Bason and disqualify him.

The Trust election closes at 5pm tomorrow so get your votes in before then if you haven't already done so! We're supporting Chris Rice, Jack Munton, Steve Potter and Andrew Smith. We also encourage all Foxes Trust Reform supporters to attend the AGM on Monday 26th January (7:30pm) either in-person at King Power Stadium or online. As members, this will be your opportunity to ask questions of the legacy Trust board and provide your feedback on the past 12 months and recent events (including Ian Bason's campaigning during the election period on Blue Tinted Glasses). The results of the election will be announced on the night.

One week to go until the Trust Election closes - 5pm on Friday 16th January! To those Trust members supporting our campaign, if you haven't voted yet, please do so. If you know other Trust members, encourage them to vote too. We need a big turnout from those that are behind our campaign and the candidates we are supporting in the Election (Chris Rice, Jack Munton, Steve Potter and Andrew Smith). Legacy board members getting re-elected will only lead to more of the same: a weak and timid Trust that is too cosy with the Club and too out of touch with what LCFC fans need in terms of fan representation right now.

Thank you! Yes, 10 days left to vote Trust members. If you haven't voted, do so now. Some people might have seen this post that was put on here a couple of days ago in a thread, bizarrely, titled something along the lines of 'LCFC Family': We've done some digging and we suspect this to either be Matt Davis, Ian Bason or someone close to them. The thread was subsequently deleted but it's a perfect example of why the legacy board members up for election would be a disaster continuing in role right now. They cannot read the room and they do not understand what is needed in supporter representation at the moment (but it's not fluffy nonsense about the 'LCFC Family' as far as we're concerned). The account says they believe in honest dialogue with us - we're yet to hear anything from them... There has, on a couple of occasions, been attempts to paint Foxes Trust Reform as a reckless protest group. We are not. But we do believe that if the Trust is to be effective it has to be brave enough to challenge the club. If the channels that the club engages with the Trust through are not achieving outcomes (as we believe the Fan Engagement Framework is not) then the Trust has to say "fix it, or we're out". If the Trust is just happy to be in the room, regardless of whether the club is listening when they are in the room, then they're failing the wider fan base and complicit in a puppet show for Fan Engagement. When Ian Bason was campaigning against our candidates on the Blue Tinted Glasses channel, there was an outlandish insinuation that we had negative intentions for Trust funds. We don't, we just suggested that the Trust might want to move that to an account where it would earn a bit of interest (which we think they are now doing) and that some of it could be used to support charitable initiatives or things that the wider fan base can benefit from (other Trusts have worked with their club on initiatives to get disadvantaged children in their local areas shirts or set up funds to help when fans have been left out of pocket by late notice TV kick-off changes). We are not to be feared by the Trust board. We've demonstrated that through our first three candidates onto board in Becky, Harry and Jamie. Each one of them has shown how they can help the Trust be better and been happy to put themselves out there publicly (on podcasts, fan channels and the streets around the ground when running the End of Season Survey). It's a shame we had to wait so long to get them on board as the existing board rejected our initial outreach and we had to wait for last year's AGM. The election provides an opportunity to put four more people on the board like this. And imagine how much more the Trust could achieve with that fresh impetus at board level. So to Trust members: let's not miss this opportunity. Chris Rice, Jack Munton, Steve Potter and Andrew Smith are the people we believe will be the best option to achieve more positive change!

Wonder how many of the existing Trust board were supportive of the boycott last night?

We've shared a few details on why we're supporting Chris Rice, Jack Munton, Andrew Smith and Steve Potter in the upcoming Trust elections on our Foxes Trust Reform Twitter/X account here. The Foxes Trust Reform mailing list received an update communication today as well - check your spam/junk folder if you have not yet seen it.

The results will be announced at the AGM on Monday 26th January. The election voting closes at 5pm on Friday 16th January so anyone who has not already voted please do so now!

Another great pod, guys, and thanks for the shout-out reminding Trust members to vote! Chris Rice Jack Munton Steve Potter Andrew Smith Ballot closes 16th January 2026.

And, as you know, we're not against you and your channel. But we do come across a lot of posts where people state an opinion but haven't taken the time to understand the Election Rules/Election Process. We're not arguing this case on our opinion of Ian Bason, we're arguing it on a fair and consistent application of the rules. Yes, we retweeted a satirical Tweet. But maybe we have a good insight into the relationship between Ian Bason and Anthony Herlihy and that Tweet got pretty close to the truth...

He's the next biggest problem that needs addressing on the Trust board (his term expires one year from now). Ian Bason, Matt Davis, Steve Moulds and Alan Digby: they've all sat in senior positions within the Trust, overseeing it becoming the completely ineffective organisation it was before we gave it a new lease of life. The key questions are these: having seen the momentum within the Trust over the last year, are they not ashamed of what they had let it become? And why are they now so desperate to still be on the board when there are others that can clearly give the Trust what it needs right now more than they can? If they believe they are the right people, what was stopping them before?

Here's the thing... he appeared on 11th December but the election candidates were only announced on 15th December. So he couldn't have named individual candidates. HOWEVER, the election period had already started so campaigning from that point was not allowed. What he did was get ahead of the candidates being released in the following few days and smeared those from our campaign. Foxes Trust Reform and our candidates are respecting the rules of the election which is why we are being considered with our comms and approach. If the Foxes Trust are saying that these rules don't apply, then we'll go wild, but we think for the integrity of the process the rules should be applied with consistency. You have referenced us not appearing on your channel previously. Funnily enough, it was in January 2025 around the time of the previous election process and Trust AGM and guess what? We were being careful about following the rules and due process!

For anyone who wants to view the episode and make their own determination on "Mr Bason did not breach the rules", these are the two rules we feel Ian Bason broke: 6.1. Campaigning under the auspices of the Society will be restricted to the statements submitted by the candidates and to any hustings organised by the Society. 6.6. During the election neither the IEM, EMG nor the Society Board may provide advice to voting members as to the suitability of any candidate nor issue any voting advice to members collectively. Individual Society Board members who indicate a preference in public must make it clear that they do not speak on behalf of the Society Board and express a purely personal opinion. Questions you'd need to consider: 1) Did Ian Bason appear on the podcast as a representative of the Foxes Trust or did he appear as an individual? If as an individual, did he speak only about matters relating to things he'd know as an ordinary individual or did he speak with knowledge of a Trust board member? 2) Did Ian Bason provide advice or guidance on the suitability of the Foxes Trust Reform candidates? If he did this, did he explicitly state this was his personal opinion? If you're not satisfied in answering either of these questions, Ian Bason broke the rules and should be disqualified from the election.

His internal communication is just as shocking as his external communications then. Will the Fan Advisory Board puppets he manoeuvred into place do anything to advise the club on how unacceptable this is? Over to you, Mr Bason and friends...

This very much spot on. If you look at many of the positive things the Trust has done in the last year or so, the fingerprints of people from our campaign are all over them. Of course there were a couple of people on the board who have no doubt been open to helping and change (as a campaign we've always backed Lynn Wyeth and we believe Paul Rains has done some good work for the Trust), but there are a good number we see/hear nothing from (and suspect they do nothing other than turn up to a board meeting every now and then). We do not want to change the Trust into a protest group - we do want it to be less afraid of calling the club out and holding it to account. But if you look at what's happened to Sheffield Wednesday and the role their Trust played recently, it's foolish and potentially dangerous to say "the Foxes Trust will not be a protest group". There may come a day it has to be. Regarding the spurious insinuations that we have ill intentions with Trust funds by Ian Bason, all we've ever said is that the Trust should be doing more to make its money work for the benefit of its members and the wider fan base. Only following pressure from our campaign is the Trust even earning significant interest on the money it has in the bank. We felt the Trust should be doing more in the community and have managed to get a working group in the Trust dedicated to doing this. They are working with LCFC In The Community. There have been numerous instances of better collaboration between the Trust and Union FS. We're encouraged to see a member of Union FS up for election. It was only Matt Davis and Paul Rains from the Trust board alongside Becky, Harry and Jamie that did work to distribute the End of Season Survey which gathered 3,200+ responses. The volunteer team that distributed it were gathered largely from people in our campaign who helped as they wanted to support the Trust doing something impactful. We wanted to reduce the membership fee either entirely or to the absolute minimum to drive the Trust to a mass membership organisation, the Trust board eventually agreed to reduce to £5. We wanted the Trust to change the rules so that board members could be removed if members felt their weren't doing a good job. The legacy board actively advised the membership base to vote against this and there is still no way to hold them to account themselves except when they are up for re-election. The look, feel and tone of the Communications from the Trust has been much improved due to the work done by our board members - even though, as mentioned earlier in this thread, Ian Bason is now seemingly undoing some of that work by bypassing the Comms group. Read the above and compare this progress to what the Trust was doing before our campaign: who do you think are the group of people to be wary of? The legacy board or those from our campaign? It's disappointing to see Ian Bason able to campaign on Blue Tinted Glasses show against those he is standing for election alongside. It's also disappointing to hear that many of those that have shared their concerns have not heard anything about action being taken to address this but have received threatening emails from Alan Digby.

To ensure that the elections are fair, there are clear rules around campaigning (which can be found here). Foxes Trust board members in particular are held to a standard that ensures they do not use their position to influence their own likelihood of re-election or to provide voting advice. On Thursday 11th December (after the election period had started), Ian Bason (a current board member standing for re-election) appeared on fan channel Blue Tinted Glasses: We believe Ian Bason broke election rules in numerous ways during this appearance and have submitted a case to the Independent Election Manager Jim Wheeler. If you are a Trust member and believe Ian Bason via this appearance has used his position (by appearing and speaking as a Trust board member) to gain an advantage in the election or to influence the voting on candidates, you can register your own feedback to Jim by emailing [email protected]. Here is what we have said in our email to Jim:

We've been verifying the veracity of some of the existing board member election statements today. The re-election of whom would simply be a continuation of a Trust that is too cosy, too timid and too tired. Matt Davis' statement claims he has "the ability to bring together reform minded members with established Board colleagues, enabling collaboration and continuity but still driving positive change". He was involved as part of the End of Season Survey leaflet distribution team (to his credit the only legacy board member to be so) but we believe his apparent openness to the Foxes Trust Reform campaign in his statement to be highly questionable, and the involvement claimed with initiatives launched by the newer board members to be relatively exaggerated in the interests of self-preservation. We feel its important that the election statements by each candidate is a true reflection of their prospective value to the Trust.

Thanks to everyone for both their patience and their support. We want to see further reform of the Foxes Trust. Of the candidates up for election, and based on their election statements, we believe the following people will help to achieve this: Jack Munton Steve Potter Chris Rice Andrew Smith Hopefully we see a great turnout in the election!

The current DOF isn’t fit for his role. Would you trust him to get the next appointment right?

Simon from our campaign appeared on the latest edition of the Big Strong Leicester Boys podcast (from 47:00 onwards) to talk about our campaign and the upcoming elections. The Trust have today also published details on the upcoming elections here. As expected, Ian Bason, Matt Davis and Sarah Hubbard are up for re-election. We support none of them in continuing and will put forward 4 candidates to replace them and take the other open space on the board.

Bump. Final chance today to get signed up and support our campaign!

For anyone wondering whether or not to support our campaign, have a read of the above. Does it sound like a Trust taking a critical and objective view of fan engagement? Or one as we have said since day one of our campaign “too timid, too cosy, too tired”? Join our campaign and let’s get the Trust where we need it to be. Just over 24 hours left to sign up and be part of the election voting.

In the terms of reference that the club released at the very last minute prior to the launch of the FAB, they have the right to veto who from the Foxes Trust board is on the FAB. They are no doubt happy with Ian Bason as the representative as he was leading the Trust when it got too cosy with the club. If there was someone from the Trust board that was too challenging for the club, they can say no. So the Trust person is essentially club endorsed. The Fans Consultative Committee is a select group of fans invited by the club to be on it. Allocating two further positions from this closed pool of people again ensured that the club exerted some control over who reached the FAB. This resulted in someone like Graeme Smith from Foxes Pride (who never challenged the club on anything) getting onto the FAB. Ryan Murrant, who has a professional background in fan engagement, advised the Trust not to sign up. Members of our campaign also flagged to the Trust that they should walk away from the flawed structure the club had put forward. The Foxes Trust reply shows that they are still unable to see the flaws in the Fan Engagement Framework. We believe it’s delivered very little but is actually being used by the club simply to further their own agenda (see the Trust being told they had to take their survey results through it and Union FS being told they had to submit tifo designs to it). If our candidates can get onto board, they will push for the Fan Engagement Framework to deliver more or the Trust to walk away. If you believe Fan Engagment isn’t working for you, join the Trust this weekend, support our candidates in the election.