KEEP LEVEIN ..... SACK THE BOARD

[davieG]

David Ross owns about 15,000 more shares in the club than the Trust & is the 12th largest shareholder in the club, we are 13th.

Is there a point at which the Trust can own enough share to gain an automatic place on the board?

Can you publish a list of say the top 15 shareholders and their relative positions/influence within thew club?

How many individual/group shareholders are there?

how many shares exist?

[King Kyle lcfc]

Yeah lets have a protest outside the ground like the old days

Sack the board sack the board sack the board

Pierpoint out pierpoint out

[Chrysalis]

Spin during the Mace era yes, but don't believe there has been much this season.

Suggest you pick up a current copy of the Fox Fanzine and read the interview with Tim Davies on the subject of ticket prices.

I have read that full article and you yourself are guilty of spin if you think its ok to compare member discount prices with non discounted prices of other clubs.

[Thracian]

Spin during the Mace era yes, but don't believe there has been much this season.

Suggest you pick up a current copy of the Fox Fanzine and read the interview with Tim Davies on the subject of ticket prices.

As shareholders of the club are you not concerned enough to ask the Chief Executive if he's happy with a policy which takes the piss out of paying spectators, namely such a publicly-proclaimed defensive strategy at Wolves that there was no serious attempt at attack?.

And if you are, why not also ask if the club is COMMITTED to restoring the attacking policy through which it enjoyed its finest hours near the top of English football?.

Some weeks ago I accepted it was good busines to sell Connolly - but that was on the basis that we'd get replacements and play em. It was not on the basis that we'd adopt 4-5-1 and go for another of the f.....g draws that have become the hallmark of our under-performing existence.

What a pity some of the tame Leicestershire journalists don't ask Levein some real questions. Like, if he believes results are more important than entertaining the fans does he really believe he is good enough to be City's boss?.

The point being that a good boss will attend to both. It's all about economics really. At least the board should be able to understand that.

And they'll probably get a bit more of the message at the Blackpool match cos had we been 100 per cent committed to winning games throughout the season so far - and to providing entertainment as we were doing it - then a whole lot more supporters would have been keen to back the club against Blackpool.

[Dunc]

As shareholders of the club are you not concerned enough to ask the Chief Executive if he's happy with a policy which takes the piss out of paying spectators, namely such a publicly-proclaimed defensive strategy at Wolves that there was no serious attempt at attack?.

And if you are, why not also ask if the club is COMMITTED to restoring the attacking policy through which it enjoyed its finest hours near the top of English football?.

Some weeks ago I accepted it was good busines to sell Connolly - but that was on the basis that we'd get replacements and play em. It was not on the basis that we'd adopt 4-5-1 and go for another of the f.....g draws that have become the hallmark of our under-performing existence.

What a pity some of the tame Leicestershire journalists don't ask Levein some real questions. Like, if he believes results are more important than entertaining the fans does he really believe he is good enough to be City's boss?.

The point being that a good boss will attend to both. It's all about economics really. At least the board should be able to understand that.

And they'll probably get a bit more of the message at the Blackpool match cos had we been 100 per cent committed to winning games throughout the season so far - and to providing entertainment as we were doing it - then a whole lot more supporters would have been keen to back the club against Blackpool.

You do normally speak a whole load of sense Mr Thracian but this post doesn't stack up (for me anyway). I don't think that CL has any obligation to the fans to produce attacking football away to Wolves when we have been conceding cheap goals all season. I would imagine he would answer that if he thought he could attack with no consideration for the result, simply to entertain the fans (who by the way were ripped off by Wolves not LCFC) then he would with a clause in his contract saying that he couldn't be sacked for losing a vast majority of games.

Football has changed since the 60's, no teams play in the same way, players don't play in the same way either. Even under our most recent successful managers (MA, MON, BL) we didn't play attacking football in the traditional sense, we played effective direct football, hardly pleasing to the eye of the neutral.

Of the games I have seen and read about it strikes me that only the Wolves game were we not trying to win the game:

Sheff Utd we lost cause we kept going for a winner when a 1-1 draw would have been a good result on the opening day. We kept attacking away from home and what happened? Oh we got thumped.

Stoke and Ipswich we attacked and got 4 pts from 6.

Crewe away - we definately kept attacking in this one cause we were 2-0 down after 20mins.

Luton we kept attacking and conceded a late goal as a result

Hull - conceded first and then could have won it or lost it in the last 10 because we kept going for the winner.

Sheff Wed - won in the first 20mins.

Cardiff - kept attacking til the end and had a goal chalked off for offside and MDV missed a sitter with the last kick of the game

Wolves - Played for a draw and got one.

Personally I don't see the Wolves game as a reflection of the season in terms of style at all, and I would like to ask why you feel it is. I for one believe if the game had been open we would have been stuffed as they are a better team than us, with a better cutting edge.

If you expect us to cut swathes through opposing defences with one touch passing ala Arsenal or have individual brilliance ala Weller, Worthington, Glover, Gibson, Clarke, Sammels, Birchenall etc then you'd best look at our squad for this season and see what standard of player we have.

As a City fan, and not a neutral, I couldn't give two hoots if we played the worst football in the league but got promoted, i would prefer that to attacking football that gets us relegated. I doubt you feel the same way but MA proved its not the style of football that people pay to watch, its the success it brings.

[Babylon]

You do normally speak a whole load of sense Mr Thracian but this post doesn't stack up (for me anyway). I don't think that CL has any obligation to the fans to produce attacking football away to Wolves when we have been conceding cheap goals all season. I would imagine he would answer that if he thought he could attack with no consideration for the result, simply to entertain the fans (who by the way were ripped off by Wolves not LCFC) then he would with a clause in his contract saying that he couldn't be sacked for losing a vast majority of games.

Football has changed since the 60's, no teams play in the same way, players don't play in the same way either. Even under our most recent successful managers (MA, MON, BL) we didn't play attacking football in the traditional sense, we played effective direct football, hardly pleasing to the eye of the neutral.

Of the games I have seen and read about it strikes me that only the Wolves game were we not trying to win the game:

Sheff Utd we lost cause we kept going for a winner when a 1-1 draw would have been a good result on the opening day. We kept attacking away from home and what happened? Oh we got thumped.

Stoke and Ipswich we attacked and got 4 pts from 6.

Crewe away - we definately kept attacking in this one cause we were 2-0 down after 20mins.

Luton we kept attacking and conceded a late goal as a result

Hull - conceded first and then could have won it or lost it in the last 10 because we kept going for the winner.

Sheff Wed - won in the first 20mins.

Cardiff - kept attacking til the end and had a goal chalked off for offside and MDV missed a sitter with the last kick of the game

Wolves - Played for a draw and got one.

Personally I don't see the Wolves game as a reflection of the season in terms of style at all, and I would like to ask why you feel it is. I for one believe if the game had been open we would have been stuffed as they are a better team than us, with a better cutting edge.

If you expect us to cut swathes through opposing defences with one touch passing ala Arsenal or have individual brilliance ala Weller, Worthington, Glover, Gibson, Clarke, Sammels, Birchenall etc then you'd best look at our squad for this season and see what standard of player we have.

As a City fan, and not a neutral, I couldn't give two hoots if we played the worst football in the league but got promoted, i would prefer that to attacking football that gets us relegated. I doubt you feel the same way but MA proved its not the style of football that people pay to watch, its the success it brings.

your da man

[Ric Flair]

You do normally speak a whole load of sense Mr Thracian but this post doesn't stack up (for me anyway). I don't think that CL has any obligation to the fans to produce attacking football away to Wolves when we have been conceding cheap goals all season. I would imagine he would answer that if he thought he could attack with no consideration for the result, simply to entertain the fans (who by the way were ripped off by Wolves not LCFC) then he would with a clause in his contract saying that he couldn't be sacked for losing a vast majority of games.

Football has changed since the 60's, no teams play in the same way, players don't play in the same way either. Even under our most recent successful managers (MA, MON, BL) we didn't play attacking football in the traditional sense, we played effective direct football, hardly pleasing to the eye of the neutral.

Of the games I have seen and read about it strikes me that only the Wolves game were we not trying to win the game:

Sheff Utd we lost cause we kept going for a winner when a 1-1 draw would have been a good result on the opening day. We kept attacking away from home and what happened? Oh we got thumped.

Stoke and Ipswich we attacked and got 4 pts from 6.

Crewe away - we definately kept attacking in this one cause we were 2-0 down after 20mins.

Luton we kept attacking and conceded a late goal as a result

Hull - conceded first and then could have won it or lost it in the last 10 because we kept going for the winner.

Sheff Wed - won in the first 20mins.

Cardiff - kept attacking til the end and had a goal chalked off for offside and MDV missed a sitter with the last kick of the game

Wolves - Played for a draw and got one.

Personally I don't see the Wolves game as a reflection of the season in terms of style at all, and I would like to ask why you feel it is. I for one believe if the game had been open we would have been stuffed as they are a better team than us, with a better cutting edge.

If you expect us to cut swathes through opposing defences with one touch passing ala Arsenal or have individual brilliance ala Weller, Worthington, Glover, Gibson, Clarke, Sammels, Birchenall etc then you'd best look at our squad for this season and see what standard of player we have.

As a City fan, and not a neutral, I couldn't give two hoots if we played the worst football in the league but got promoted, i would prefer that to attacking football that gets us relegated. I doubt you feel the same way but MA proved its not the style of football that people pay to watch, its the success it brings.

To be fair that is a brilliant post. I totally agree Dunc. People need to get realistic, it's only a few weeks ago since alot of us were having a posh one over the football we played against Stoke. The fact is we are going through a massive transitional period and if you trust Craig Levein then he'll see us alright. I certainly trust him and have from the start, you can't keep going back on your word when we lose a game.

We welcomed the prospect of a manager to come in and completely change things, when you do that then you need to accept when things go wrong. Don't get me wrong, we are under-acheiving at times and if Levein's plans aren't anygood then we'll find that out in time but atleast give him a chance. What he's building takes a few years and to knock that down would leave us in an even worse position.

Take the defeats on the chin, cherish the wins and get behind the team. This isn't a quick fix, managers have come here and failed going down the easy route. Craig is being brave and trying to mastermind a revolution here, hats off to him. He's got my vote and i'll support him until the end.

[Katy]

To be fair that is a brilliant post. I totally agree Dunc. People need to get realistic, it's only a few weeks ago since alot of us were having a posh one over the football we played against Stoke. The fact is we are going through a massive transitional period and if you trust Craig Levein then he'll see us alright. I certainly trust him and have from the start, you can't keep going back on your word when we lose a game.

We welcomed the prospect of a manager to come in and completely change things, when you do that then you need to accept when things go wrong. Don't get me wrong, we are under-acheiving at times and if Levein's plans aren't anygood then we'll find that out in time but atleast give him a chance. What he's building takes a few years and to knock that down would leave us in an even worse position.

Take the defeats on the chin, cherish the wins and get behind the team. This isn't a quick fix, managers have come here and failed going down the easy route. Craig is being brave and trying to mastermind a revolution here, hats off to him. He's got my vote and i'll support him until the end.

My sentiments exactly! Now LETS MOVE ON!!!!!

[Cobbo]

My sentiments exactly! Now LETS MOVE ON!!!!!

Heed these words people!

[Thracian]

To be fair that is a brilliant post. I totally agree Dunc. People need to get realistic, it's only a few weeks ago since alot of us were having a posh one over the football we played against Stoke. The fact is we are going through a massive transitional period and if you trust Craig Levein then he'll see us alright. I certainly trust him and have from the start, you can't keep going back on your word when we lose a game.

We welcomed the prospect of a manager to come in and completely change things, when you do that then you need to accept when things go wrong. Don't get me wrong, we are under-acheiving at times and if Levein's plans aren't anygood then we'll find that out in time but atleast give him a chance. What he's building takes a few years and to knock that down would leave us in an even worse position.

Take the defeats on the chin, cherish the wins and get behind the team. This isn't a quick fix, managers have come here and failed going down the easy route. Craig is being brave and trying to mastermind a revolution here, hats off to him. He's got my vote and i'll support him until the end.

Can't you see this pre-occupation with caution that so afflicts the modern game is driving spectators away?.

It's not just Leicester. It's becoming endemic.

The hint is there that anyone whose heart is back with the excitement of Sixties football is somehow Neanderthal and as is shouted loud and clear that "the game has changed".

Too right it's changed. To three points for a win. What is the logical point in having a defensive strategy that is always going to result in more draws than an attacking one?

Scowy made the point - that no matter how many defenders we have we are still vulnerable to conceding from dead ball situations and that is exactly what has happened mostly - at dreadful cost to our points record.

I said in the close season we should buy another centre-forward and I said it loudly and clearly.

I said loud and clear that we needed to score two/three goals per game.

We could do that easily with what we've got and certainly if we had that striker I mentioned and how many more points would we have had then - with two goals a game.

Certainly six and probably eight. What do I have to do to convert you folk to something which is a damn sight better on the eye than swamping midfield and pulling everyone back into defence at the first hint of trouble...where they get in each others way in any case.

The point about an attacking strategy is that the opposition have to worry about what you are doing and cannot easily commit so many men to attack. The big danger is from fast counter attack but we now have defenders that are probably swift enough to recover most situations (and few teams in the Championship are capable of genuinely fast counter attack).

Defending, in my view, is always easier in the opponents half than in ours...and less costly when you make an error.

Levein seems to believe this but he loses his nerve cos his natural caution always wins the battle in his mind.

Furthermore he doesn't seem to have anyone on his staff to get the best out of forwards - although the constant weakening of the front end to paper the cracks at the back doesn't help.

In conclusion I believe the pre-occupation with caution is a cancer within our game set off by the obscene amounts of money involved. I just wish the Leicester management (directors included) had the vision to row their own boat against the tide and to set a different agenda, one which puts bums back on seats.

We have, I suppose, a fundamental difference in our thinking in that I DO believe managers and clubs have a responsibility to entertain the fans, home and away, to play with conviction for 90 minutes (not 20) to try and play with imagination and to try and score goals which is the fundamental object of the game.

And the irony is that if we ever have that, you will all enjoy watching more.

[Babylon]

The football is more exciting than it was under adams, end of story.

[Foxes_Trust]

Is there a point at which the Trust can own enough share to gain an automatic place on the board?

Can you publish a list of say the top 15 shareholders and their relative positions/influence within thew club?

How many individual/group shareholders are there?

how many shares exist?

Yes - we need £500k in shares to get an automatic place, its written into the memo & articles of association.

A full list of shareholders is available from companies house, so its no secret, will post the details later in the week.

There are around 40 shareholders in total with shareholdings ranging from £500k to £50k.

From memory around £6m shares, but some are still available, but there is a minimum value to be purchased, probably around £50k

[Ric Flair]

Can't you see this pre-occupation with caution that so afflicts the modern game is driving spectators away?.

It's not just Leicester. It's becoming endemic.

The hint is there that anyone whose heart is back with the excitement of Sixties football is somehow Neanderthal and as is shouted loud and clear that "the game has changed".

Too right it's changed. To three points for a win. What is the logical point in having a defensive strategy that is always going to result in more draws than an attacking one?

Scowy made the point - that no matter how many defenders we have we are still vulnerable to conceding from dead ball situations and that is exactly what has happened mostly - at dreadful cost to our points record.

I said in the close season we should buy another centre-forward and I said it loudly and clearly.

I said loud and clear that we needed to score two/three goals per game.

We could do that easily with what we've got and certainly if we had that striker I mentioned and how many more points would we have had then - with two goals a game.

Certainly six and probably eight. What do I have to do to convert you folk to something which is a damn sight better on the eye than swamping midfield and pulling everyone back into defence at the first hint of trouble...where they get in each others way in any case.

The point about an attacking strategy is that the opposition have to worry about what you are doing and cannot easily commit so many men to attack. The big danger is from fast counter attack but we now have defenders that are probably swift enough to recover most situations (and few teams in the Championship are capable of genuinely fast counter attack).

Defending, in my view, is always easier in the opponents half than in ours...and less costly when you make an error.

Levein seems to believe this but he loses his nerve cos his natural caution always wins the battle in his mind.

Furthermore he doesn't seem to have anyone on his staff to get the best out of forwards - although the constant weakening of the front end to paper the cracks at the back doesn't help.

In conclusion I believe the pre-occupation with caution is a cancer within our game set off by the obscene amounts of money involved. I just wish the Leicester management (directors included) had the vision to row their own boat against the tide and to set a different agenda, one which puts bums back on seats.

We have, I suppose, a fundamental difference in our thinking in that I DO believe managers and clubs have a responsibility to entertain the fans, home and away, to play with conviction for 90 minutes (not 20) to try and play with imagination and to try and score goals which is the fundamental object of the game.

And the irony is that if we ever have that, you will all enjoy watching more.

Your talking about one game though Thracian, one game. If Levein continues to play 4-5-1 for a number of games then yes, I will be frustrated. But the fact that Levein had a different style up his sleeve for the Wolves game is good to know and perhaps he's got more different style for different occasions. He's explained that we've thrown games away recently and he wants us to be defensively tight and then push on and win games. I know that defensively we are most vulnerable at set pieces and no formation will prevent this from happening, but we have also been very lucky not to concede more goals from open play with obscene defending at times.

One thing you haven't considered is the fact that this team might not be that strong at attacking, we have been very fluent going forward in the majority of our games this season and have little to show for it. Which is what Levein has indicated and until this team show signs of being able to outscore other teams then being defensively astute seems the logical thing.

I hated the performance on saturday and 4-5-1 should be banned from football, but i'm not jumping down Levein's throat because he's played this formation once. You have been harping on for a long time that Leicester should play attacking football, but if you haven't got the tools to do this effectively what's the point? I know you then might say, well then that's Levein's fault for not signing the correct attackers but you need to be realistic. This team might be capable of attacking successfully but at present they aren't showing it and hat's off to Levein for changing things a little.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be Thrac. Let's just see what happens hey? If we play 4-5-1 for a number of games then I think your argument will hold more substance.

[Foxes_Trust]

I have read that full article and you yourself are guilty of spin if you think its ok to compare member discount prices with non discounted prices of other clubs.

We don't know if any other clubs have members discounts, but that's what we are currently researching.

Our belief is few if any, in which case it would be a fair comparison of the options on offer.

[Foxes_Trust]

As shareholders of the club are you not concerned enough to ask the Chief Executive if he's happy with a policy which takes the piss out of paying spectators, namely such a publicly-proclaimed defensive strategy at Wolves that there was no serious attempt at attack?.

And if you are, why not also ask if the club is COMMITTED to restoring the attacking policy through which it enjoyed its finest hours near the top of English football?.

Some weeks ago I accepted it was good busines to sell Connolly - but that was on the basis that we'd get replacements and play em. It was not on the basis that we'd adopt 4-5-1 and go for another of the f.....g draws that have become the hallmark of our under-performing existence.

What a pity some of the tame Leicestershire journalists don't ask Levein some real questions. Like, if he believes results are more important than entertaining the fans does he really believe he is good enough to be City's boss?.

The point being that a good boss will attend to both. It's all about economics really. At least the board should be able to understand that.

And they'll probably get a bit more of the message at the Blackpool match cos had we been 100 per cent committed to winning games throughout the season so far - and to providing entertainment as we were doing it - then a whole lot more supporters would have been keen to back the club against Blackpool.

We would not question the club based on a defensive formation for a SINGLE game. If this proved to be the case on an ongoing basis, then yes we may raise the issue.

However crowds are likely to fall even further if we go to an attacking policy & then get relegated.

I think you need a bit of perspective of 90 minutes over the course of an entire season

[Phil]

you can have our board if you like?

[wirralsimon]

I would love us to buy at the top end of the market courtesy of a millionire benefactor and win the league playing gast attacking football but it's time for a reality check.

We DIDsplash the cash in the way the club never had done before in the PT era, and before it all went bad, supportes like me were excited and enthused that the board were doing what we had always wanted them to do, despite the fact some of the signings seemed a bit iffy, even at the time.

The club went to the brink of extinction as a direct result of that policy.

We now need to face the fact that we are a mid-table championship club, buth in terms of results and finances. We are no longer in crisis, but there is still very little monay about.

CL has been given the task of improving results whil slashing the wage bill. Not easy, and sometimes pragmatism is going to win out over flair.

Anyone not happy with the board/CL has to remember that 'better' managers and boards are not out there waiting to join/fund LCFC.

We are all going to have to be patient this season, getting back where we belong is going to be a long, hard process.

Simon

[davieG]

Yes - we need £500k in shares to get an automatic place, its written into the memo & articles of association.

A full list of shareholders is available from companies house, so its no secret, will post the details later in the week.

There are around 40 shareholders in total with shareholdings ranging from £500k to £50k.

From memory around £6m shares, but some are still available, but there is a minimum value to be purchased, probably around £50k

Thanks for the info, I'll look out for your next post on this.

[lush]

A good insight there foxes_trust.

Can you or anyone else here name every individual on our board, and how many shares they have, thanks.

[Katy]

Yes - we need £500k in shares to get an automatic place, its written into the memo & articles of association.

A full list of shareholders is available from companies house, so its no secret, will post the details later in the week.

There are around 40 shareholders in total with shareholdings ranging from £500k to £50k.

From memory around £6m shares, but some are still available, but there is a minimum value to be purchased, probably around £50k

A good insight there foxes_trust.

Can you or anyone else here name every individual on our board, and how many shares they have, thanks.

Therein lies your answer lush - patience is the key!

[Thracian]

The football is more exciting than it was under adams, end of story.

Is that really the limit of your expectations Babylon? I was one of the first to call for Adams head. I want the football to be as good as in Matt Gillies days. In fact it should never have been allowed to slip below that standard.

You've highlighted one of the troubles at Leicester. So many of the managers and coaches have been so inept that expectations are pretty low all round.

[lush]

Therein lies your answer lush - patience is the key!

Is there 40 shareholders on the board?

[Babylon]

I was one of the first to call for Adams head

Why does that not suprise me. Probably called for Mon's head after 12 games also.

I want to play like bloody brazil 1970 but it aint going to happen. I couldn't give two hoots if we played like wimbledon 1985 if we are getting results. As has been mentioned before, I don't go to Leicester to be entertained. If the football is good then that's a bonus.

[Katy]

Is there 40 shareholders on the board?

My point being that the Foxes-Trust rep said they would publish the names of shareholders later in the week.

[davieG]

My point being that the Foxes-Trust rep said they would publish the names of shareholders later in the week.

I think Lush is trying to convince us that he doesn't read the other posts.