Foxes Trust Board comment on relegation and the message from the Club’s Chairman

[lcfc278]

A few people saying join them or ignore them as they 'represent their members' only.

 

At the end of the day this Trust regularly attends official meetings with the club to represent fans views and they are also part of the FSA as Leicester's official supporters trust.

 

Whether they like it or not they are representing Leicester fans as a whole and not just their members. I don't a) have time or b) the desire to join a supporters trust like the Foxes Trust, however, if they are representing our fans on occasions like these I think they owe it to us to be transparent about what they're doing on 'our behalf'. 

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I think the point Dave is that the whole thing is a bit anachronistic. The thing has a vicar of Dibley vibe. 

 

I'm not one of those that enjoys piling on. They are easy meat. GEN X way out of their depth  in the fast living world of social and viral campaigns. 

 

I think they'd be wise to consider a rebrand and become much more of a lobbying group. That they are the club's conscience, watchdog and 'Shadow cabinet'. 

 

Donations for its running are optional, no obligatoryh And that they have on call spokespersons for themes such as  PR/ media, football (or corporate) finance, ex player/manager, diversity and inclusion, next gen, culture, local authorities 

 

. Do the due diligence. Cut through the club's bluff. Ask sometimes the difficult questions (you don't have to get answers, posing the questions alone is enough) 

 

 

Well the board is made up of those interested enough to stand from the members who are interested in being part of a Trust. I'm not 100% certain but I think they have to be registered with some higher authority and have ways in which they can operate.

 

Whether this is all outdated and doesn't appeal to the majority of fans I don't know but I believe they are much more acceptable and needed with smaller at risk clubs.

 

I was  a member in it's early days when the club was at risk but dropped out at later date as I have no need for a trust or any other supporters organisation. I buy my ST go to games, go home, come on Foxestalk I don't need anything else. I've become accustomed  to the inevitable ups and downs of this club, the 'customer' problems associated with any big organisation. I'll have the occasional rant about them on here knowing that it's unlikely anything will change unless the CLUB see a benefit in it for them.

I have a happy cynical and pessimistic relationship with LCFC. 

 

If the club was at risk again I'd consider rejoining. 

 

[CosbehFox]

Just to say they are at least diplomatic in their organisation. It could be the supporters club which has the sopranos aka the Ginetta’s in charge 

[Daggers]

20 hours ago, MrsJohnMurphy said:

@StanSP on ignore............wow

 

You must have half the forum blocked 

What did he say?

 

 

[Foxes_Trust]

14 hours ago, davieG said:

Well the board is made up of those interested enough to stand from the members who are interested in being part of a Trust. I'm not 100% certain but I think they have to be registered with some higher authority and have ways in which they can operate.

 

 

We are registered as an Industrial & Provident Society, and therefore have democratic elections and submit annual accounts to the Financial Financial Services Authority, we also have a published set of policy documents Policy Documents – Foxes Trust

[Craig]

31 minutes ago, Foxes_Trust said:

We are registered as an Industrial & Provident Society, and therefore have democratic elections and submit annual accounts to the Financial Financial Services Authority, we also have a published set of policy documents Policy Documents – Foxes Trust

How many current members do you have?

[Le Renard]

Some on here won't be happy until the Foxes trust members don sackcloth, grab hold of a pitchfork or scythe, then march on to King Power Stadium, and maybe have a witch-burning session. 

 

P.S. Apologies to any gender-neutral witches out there, or female witches that identify with warlocks!

[Freeman's Wharfer]

On 10/07/2023 at 01:35, Foxes_Trust said:

The club at this stage has purely acknowledged receipt of the questions, we have a Foxes Trust board meeting tomorrow night when we will discuss the next steps (both with the club and what/when we will publish more details dependent on the level of further response from the club)

Hey @Foxes_Trust, 3 weeks until the start of the season and 10 days on from your board meeting…

 

When have the club committed to giving you answers to the questions you submitted holding them to account for the failures of last season?

 

When are you going to share with the supporter base what you have asked?

[Leicester_Loyal]

5 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Hey @Foxes_Trust, 3 weeks until the start of the season and 10 days on from your board meeting…

 

When have the club committed to giving you answers to the questions you submitted holding them to account for the failures of last season?

 

When are you going to share with the supporter base what you have asked?

Ha, you might be waiting a while. 

[Footballwipe]

On 11/07/2023 at 00:51, Craig said:

How many current members do you have?

@Foxes_Trust could you follow up and actually get round to answering this question? Like an annoying little shit, I'll be following up on this question regularly. Also, not to sound like one of those pathetic "angry people in local newspapers" people, but I'll also be contacting the Mercury to see if they know the answer to the question and, if they don't, ask them to ask you. If you're the first contact in their little black book of "voices of Leicester City" you absolutely need to acknowledge this.

 

Be. Transparent. You cannot be a hypocrite and ask for transparency from what is essentially a private company when you yourself are not transparent. I'm so tired of thinking and saying this.

 

Thanks in advance.

Edited 21 July 2023 by Footballwipe

[Wymsey]

Why is the Trust not answering certain, sensible questions throughout this thread?

[StanSP]

Apparently the only answer to any question is to join them, and that's the best way to find out what they asked

[Foxes_Trust]

On 21/07/2023 at 12:05, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Hey @Foxes_Trust, 3 weeks until the start of the season and 10 days on from your board meeting…

 

When have the club committed to giving you answers to the questions you submitted holding them to account for the failures of last season?

 

When are you going to share with the supporter base what you have asked?

We have been promised a Teams meeting while the clubs representatives are in Thailand.

 

What we share will be dependent on the clubs responses.

[StanSP]

2 minutes ago, Foxes_Trust said:

What we share will be dependent on the clubs responses.

What responses are you expecting? 

 

Any indication on the kind of questions asked? 

 

It seems a bit secretive. 

[Foxes_Trust]

13 minutes ago, StanSP said:

What responses are you expecting? 

 

Any indication on the kind of questions asked? 

 

It seems a bit secretive. 

As this is a public forum, the club will be monitoring it, hence we aren't putting any cards down in advance of the responses.

[CosbehFox]

And still we await the answer regards how many members the Foxes Trust has

[StanSP]

2 minutes ago, Foxes_Trust said:

As this is a public forum, the club will be monitoring it, hence we aren't putting any cards down in advance of the responses.

Not even the questions posed to the club, considering they'd have seen them anyway? 

[SemperEadem]

Its clear The Trust are concerned what they put on here will impact their relationship with the club. 
I would personally want some of the questions that have gone the way of the trust to be answered here as I think it would be helpful. However the club pulling comms with them all together over this is id say quite possible.

[Craig]

5 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

And still we await the answer regards how many members the Foxes Trust has

I've just been doing some light digging. 

 

In September 2022 the Foxes Trust Board declared that they are a "membership organisation representing over 300 members"... 

 

 

[Paninistickers]

17 minutes ago, SemperEadem said:

Its clear The Trust are concerned what they put on here will impact their relationship with the club. 
I would personally want some of the questions that have gone the way of the trust to be answered here as I think it would be helpful. However the club pulling comms with them all together over this is id say quite possible.

I get the point. But there's no need for FT or Radio Leicester or anyone else to pussy foot around the club, for fear of being purged. 

 

A robust self appointed watchdog is needed, whether the club like it or not. A little like an employer having to tolerate a union. They don't want to, but they have to. 

[SemperEadem]

2 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I get the point. But there's no need for FT or Radio Leicester or anyone else to pussy foot around the club, for fear of being purged. 

 

A robust self appointed watchdog is needed, whether the club like it or not. A little like an employer having to tolerate a union. They don't want to, but they have to. 

But they all do. They are all terrified of losing their access.

 

Its a club now that doesn't like questioning and you could make the case for large swathes of the fanbase too. 
 

The Trust are spooked and to be honest I think they are right to be. Comms Director has this site watched and Im sure has been in their ear.

[KFS]

35 minutes ago, Foxes_Trust said:

As this is a public forum, the club will be monitoring it, hence we aren't putting any cards down in advance of the responses.

Wtf sort of an answer is that  you’re a fan trust who are willing to play into the club’s secrecy? 
 

Better not upset your relationship with them. There’s coach 1 level issues to moan about next season, after all

[BlueSi13]

The club are obviously still deciding what questions they want to go with their answers.

[urban.spaceman]

Hadn't actually read the @Foxes_Trust post until now, though I did enjoy the excoriation it got when it was first posted. While I do appreciate the work you've done over the years, particularly when you were first formed, that original post was eviscerated because it simply wasn't good enough. You must have significant influence at the club to have even got a meeting in the first place, and that puts you in a considerable position to get across as many voices of the fans as possible.

 

I want to see that the club is aware of the structural disadvantages within football as outlined in my post in 'the legal action against Everton thread':

 

On 24/06/2023 at 00:17, urban.spaceman said:

I don't want anyone to take this personally but I feel that not enough people quite understand the ways in which we've been held back since we won the league. It's not just about Everton and Man City's antics - to add to the unlevel playing field analogy we've also quite literally had our arms tied behind our back by a system that treats the "big" with deference and everyone else with nothing but contempt, including us fans as consumers.

 

The TV deal for UK consumers is quite literally the worst in the world for non-"top 6" clubs and consumers. It's what sustains the "big" clubs and prevents smaller clubs from ever developing and breaking into the top 7 places on a long term basis.

 

If you are a British consumer and you want to access every single Premier League match, then you have absolutely no legal right or means to do so.

 

In most other countries you can.

 

In the UK you are expected to subscribe to Sky, BT and Amazon and yet you only get access to 52% of the matches. A rough estimate on my part is that this will cost you £775 per annum, although I can only find a minimum 18 month contract with Sky and 24 month contract with BT.

 

I've said this before, but for the last 6 months of our title winning season I was living in Cape Town then spent 2-3 months living in Botswana and travelling around the region. I could either pay for DSTV/Supersport at £360pa and get access to every single Premier League match, or walk in to any pub to get access to it.

 

My dad lives 8 miles away from the King Power and had absolutely absolutely no legal right or means to watch us play on tv.

 

A few weeks ago there was a gang of Brits jailed for decades for providing access to "illegal" streams for UK consumers.

 

Or to put it another way, the Premier League managed to prosecute people for making their product actually accessible to people who wanted to access it. 

 

-------

 

But here's why it's bad for clubs like us.

 

Football has had a Saturday 3pm broadcast blackout since the 60s, which is why UK based consumers can't watch the games. So matches are selected by broadcasters and moved away from the Saturday 3pm slot to get around that rule. Clubs are given "facility fees" - £1.2m per game as it stands - for every match selected for UK broadcast. They have viewers to attract, so the broadcasters pick the clubs they feel will bring in more viewers, which is what tips the eventual earnings in favour of the biggest clubs.

 

To give you an example, in 2014/15, we were selected for broadcast only 8 times.

 

In 2015/16, we were selected for broadcast 15 times (just 12 in 2016/17). Newcastle 16. Everton 18. Spurs 21. Chelsea 22. Liverpool 23. Man Utd 25. Man City 26. Arsenal 27.

 

In total prize money, we were the 5th highest earners with £93m. Spurs £95m, Man Utd £96.3m, Man City £96.8m and Arsenal £100.8m.

 

That right there is evidence of football not being a meritocracy.

 

And that's before you even get to the extra exposure for sponsors which sends their 'earnings' skyrocketing - Man City have certainly been using it as an excuse to inflate their deals, hence the constant investigations.

 

And that's just part of the issue. One of the FFP measures they brought in in 2013 was called Short Term Cost Control (STCC). It was basically, they said, designed to keep clubs spending within their means {directly controlled, see above} and not have wage bills spiralling out of control.

 

Clubs were restricted from increasing wage bills by more than 7% each season.

 

That in itself is designed to protect the bigger clubs IMO.

 

We won the league with a squad that had been promoted 2 seasons earlier and had finished 14th the previous season. So despite being the actual Champions, we were restricted from spending money {that had already been stifled} on players to compete at the top where we found ourselves.

 

We were the reigning Champions but effectively only had the spending power of 14th place club.

 

(Side note - STCC ended in 2019 which is why Newcastle were able to spend £300m in the last year despite circa £30m the previous)

 

-------

 

In summary, you've basically got a company (the Premier League) colluding with participants (the "big" clubs) and restricting access (via broadcasters) in order to restrain competition (the "other 14") and prices for consumers (us).

 

That, my friends, is the dictionary definition of a cartel:

 

cartel

noun

a group of similar independent companies who join together to control prices and limit competition

 

-------

 

Miguel Delaney did a fantastic article in The Independent in early 2020, about a month before lockdown. It begins:

 

“We don’t want too many Leicester Citys.”

These were the words spoken by a senior figure from the Premier League’s ‘big six’ clubs, in the kind of high-end London hotel you can easily imagine.

“Football history suggests fans like big teams winning,” the official continued, to the group of business people and media figures present. “A certain amount of unpredictability is good, but a more democratic league would be bad for business.”

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/champions-league-superclubs-liverpool-man-utd-barcelona-real-madrid-a9330431.html

 

That was about 9 months before Man United and Liverpool tried to bring in Project Big Picture, which involved reducing the teams to 18, giving the 9 clubs with the longest time in the league (but in reality allowing 'any six clubs' and we all know who they are) more voting power on competition issues, and especially distribution of broadcast revenues. citation

 

That was 14 months before they announced the European Super League which as we all know would have bankrupted everyone but themselves.

 

-------

 

We absolutely should not have been allowed to win the Premier League. It shouldn't have happened. They let their guard down expecting that one of the six (well, four; Liverpool hadn't won a title in 25 years and Tottenham are, well, Tottenham). They had controlled the finances and fortunes (in every sense of the word) of the competition for so long that a club ACTUALLY WINNING IT ON MERIT was utterly unthinkable.

 

As far as I'm concerned, with our relegation, they got exactly what they wanted. This is our punishment for humiliating them without buying in.

 

Clubs like Manchester City and Newcastle are so wealthy that they are unaccountable. Man City's CEO is literally on record saying he'd rather spend £50m on lawyers suing UEFA than pay a £30m fine. They refused to cooperate with UEFA for years, were allowed to appoint 2 of the 3 CAS judges who - lo and behold - declared that their rule breaks were "time barred". The Premier League spent 2 years investigating Man City before they were even allowed to report on it. Just look at the trophies they've won in just the 4 years they were being investigated.

 

Football is broken to such a level that only government action will fix it. The problem we have with that is that we don't have a functioning government, and the Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is a vocal Man City fan who expressed disappointment after the UEFA ban.

 

Football in this country is beyond broken.

 

And it won't get 'fixed'. Because it already is.

 

-------

 

“We don’t want too many Leicester Citys.”

I want to hear that they're aware and taking the necessary action to be ready to take that legal and get what we're owed.

 

I want the Foxes Trust to show they're aware of these issues too and are willing to act, as a supporters trust, in the best interests of the football club and football as a whole.

 

Your very first aim listed on your website states:

 

To lobby, publicise and campaign to encourage the Board to take into account the interests of supporters when making its decisions.

 

I want to see Foxes Trust committing to challenging the status quo at the top of the game which has become utterly toxic for clubs outside the anointed and the richest.

 

I want to see Foxes Trust work with the FSA and other trusts to explore legal action against the Premier League and the broadcasters, as fans and consumers, to get a fairer broadcast deal for fans that is equal to fans and consumers around the world, and that actually distributes the money to clubs in a way that is actually FAIR. 

 

I want to see Foxes Trust to pursue actual justice for our football club and doing what it can to break apart the corrupt cartel that has taken over the game.

 

This is what you exist for. Or what you should exist for.

 

Look at how the Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs. Liverpool and Manchester fans reacted when their clubs set up the European Super League.

 

That's what I want. I want to see action. I want to see anger. I want to see change being forced by fan groups.

 

Basically, as the kids say:

 

Do better. Is that too much to ask?

[Freeman's Wharfer]

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the club have the Trust exactly where they want them. Scared to question or challenge them for fear of losing their privileges.

 

Unfortunately, that makes the Trust defunct.

 

The last thing a Trust should be is unwilling to create constructive tension with the club - otherwise they’re just another supporters club that gets together for some nice social events and wants the club to provide a player to attend an awards ceremony here or some free tickets there.

 

If this is driven by the Comms Director then someone needs to take him/her to task. What terrible PR it would be for the club to refuse to engage with the Trust because they have sought accountability over the failures that have happened. Have confidence in that fact.

 

The Comms Director should be here for a few career years, the Trust should be here forever. Act in a way befitting of that @Foxes_Trust