Foxes Trust – LCFC Accounts Statement

[Foxes_Trust]

Foxes Trust – LCFC Accounts Statement – Foxes Trust

[Daggers]

*Tips cap for knocking their silence

[dmayne7]

14 minutes ago, Foxes_Trust said:

Foxes Trust – LCFC Accounts Statement – Foxes Trust

I know you got pelters on here re the summer review but it seems that hostility has lessened recently. Sadly, the opening paragraph of that is just going to open you up to it again.

 

I understand that it's a politically charged situation and you have to play nice to an extent but you're letting them off far too lightly. Your role is to hold them to account and that doesn't seem to happen. Clubs of our size cannot survive without the support on fans so they need you as a group, a lot more than they or you realise. It's all smoke and mirrors with the leadership at the club and they have their heads completely buried in the sand, so if they don't hear the message clearly, they'll continue to think everything is fine.

 

Above all, they talk about the financial commitment to the club but they've already jeopardised that with their actions. Long term PL football is the only way we achieve that.

[JimmyC74]

@Foxes_Trust How can it be right that the Club won't share the breakdown of the PSR calculation with the Trust / supporters, when presumably if charges are followed up (points deductions, embargos, fines) after the Independent Commission process, the league / IC will themselves reveal it - we should not be the last to know!  And Ipswich Town has shown it is possible to do.

 

You are right to challenge this and please keep asking, no demanding, answers to the questions incl. : 

1. Who will be taking responsibility for the failures in financial control and management.

2. What lessons have been learned

3. What plans are being put in place to ensure we are not negatively impacted in the future.

 

With regards the Club failing to respond to outstanding questions what is your plan to follow-up on this(e.g escalation to the CEO). 

Edited 3 April by JimmyC74

[egg_fried_rice]

Better than nothing, but too mealy-mouthed, and primarily focussed on the wrong area.

 

Yes - challenge PSR/FFP by all means, but to do so in response to this abject mismanagement from he club feels a bit like whataboutery that excuses the club's failings.

 

As an LCFC supporters trust - it is the club who you should be holding firmly to account, especially at this juncture.

[AKCJ]

Essentially... "We'd like it if you did better but it's ok if you don't and we know it's not all your fault".

 

Weak as piss for me. Should be demands for resignations IMO.

[Footballwipe]

Let's hope the new members joining on the back of this horrible financial situation means change within the mealy-mouthed relics running this trust.

 

Honestly, every step forward you leap backwards. Emphasising an element of the club you're pleased with in the opening paragraph is a slap in the face to the horrors of what we've just been exposed to by this rabble.

 

Looks like positive change is needed at both the club and within the trust. This softly softly approach has gotten you absolutely nowhere other than a few confidential meetings and a sense of self importance. You're making zero difference. Do better if you want to be seen as the leading fan group.

[TheGoldenGod]

Yeah, echo what's been said. Far too "pal-y" with the board clearly. HOLD THE BASTARDS accountable!

[Patrick]

"We are where we are"

[eblair]

Let’s stop all being mental. The club losing £90m whilst booking £70m of profit on sales is insane. It’s irresponsible of highest order

 

It was gambling clubs future. Top doesn’t have money to sustain this lunacy. Everyone needs to wake the f*** up. They’ve screwed the club by being absolute morons 

[Chelmofox]

If you don't mind me asking, when you say you 'met with the club', what does that actually mean? Do you actually get to meet any of the board or do you meet a separate representative? Its great you have a dialog, but unless that representation is with someone remotely responsible or accountable you are just going to be fed 3rd hand information.

[inckley fox]

In the context of what's been going on recently, I'm not sure they can lay claim to representing the fanbase if the emphasis remains on how thankful they are to KP. Dropping in one diplomatically querying adjective doesn't help either.

 

That said, unless they have a great deal more information than any of us do, I don't see how they can demand resignations, because we don't know who's to blame.

 

Even so, it would be completely reasonable to insist (far more forcibly) that the club reach out a lot more, establishing new points of contact with local media / fan groups, and acknowledge the need to address - over time, but also openly and humbly - some more serious questions. I don't think the Trust comes across at all well when its proverbial tongue appears to be searching so hungrily for the club's rear end.

[UniFox21]

1 hour ago, AKCJ said:

Essentially... "We'd like it if you did better but it's ok if you don't and we know it's not all your fault".

 

Weak as piss for me. Should be demands for resignations IMO.

But we've heard from UFS the minute you start fully challenging on things or become blacklisted, the club completely shut the door on you. 

 

I agree the message should have been stronger, but politics is hugely at play 

[ramboacdc]

14 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

But we've heard from UFS the minute you start fully challenging on things or become blacklisted, the club completely shut the door on you. 

 

I agree the message should have been stronger, but politics is hugely at play 

How very mature of them. Shows they see fans as walking pound signs more than anything and hope throwing a donut at us once a year will keep the sealions barking and clapping. 

 

 

[Harpenden Fox]

It’s totally clear that if Foxes Trust board members were as confrontational as some of the keyboard based contributors on this thread would have them be, they would be excluded completely. Such is the challenge we face. Better to at least have some leverage than none at all

[steveherbe]

5 minutes ago, ramboacdc said:

How very mature of them. Shows they see fans as walking pound signs more than anything and hope throwing a donut at us once a year will keep the sealions barking and clapping. 

 

 

Well, this particular sealion has finished barking and clapping. As they say on a particular TV program, I'm OUT. Dont think I'll be seen at the KP again, unless of course the current owners FOAD and turn the club over to UFS to run. Now that would be a laugh!!

[Chelmofox]

9 minutes ago, Harpenden Fox said:

It’s totally clear that if Foxes Trust board members were as confrontational as some of the keyboard based contributors on this thread would have them be, they would be excluded completely. Such is the challenge we face. Better to at least have some leverage than none at all

100% agree. Its why I was interested in knowing who is met. Representatives of the trust would definately have to tread carefully for sure.

[Drew Peacock]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

But we've heard from UFS the minute you start fully challenging on things or become blacklisted, the club completely shut the door on you. 

 

I agree the message should have been stronger, but politics is hugely at play 

I agree.
Does the existence of the trust make any difference to a club who seem so unapproachable on any subject and about as transparent as The Freemasons?
Even if mad Mick Lynch from the railway trade union joined and tried to bring changes or accountability from the club would he succeed in getting anywhere ? They have the power, and avoid answering every question and confrontation forever. Or for as long as possible, until they can’t any longer, then make excuses and deflect blame onto anyone and everything apart from themselves.

It’s clear the internal enquiry at the end of last season either never happened or concluded ‘There is nothing to see.’ Now, this financial mismanagement over years, with terrible recruitment and contract dealings is blamed totally on wanting to compete. Partly true yes, but far from the whole truth. 
What could force them to be accountable or to bring change?

Are they untouchable? 

[5waller5]

The statement started well, then seemed to lose confidence and softened.

 

A perfect metaphor for the last few seasons.

[SecretPro]

I'll repeat what I've said previously. I have literally never heard Jon Rudkin speak, ever. I've never heard Whelan speak, ever. I've certainly never ever seen a single piece of engagement between the Board and the fans, ever. The board give zero shits about any of us. 

 

As for the foxes trust, we'll they simply aren't doing a very good job of representing me. 

 

Leicester City and KP love silence. Always have, always will. 

[inckley fox]

24 minutes ago, Harpenden Fox said:

It’s totally clear that if Foxes Trust board members were as confrontational as some of the keyboard based contributors on this thread would have them be, they would be excluded completely. Such is the challenge we face. Better to at least have some leverage than none at all

What leverage have they had? It certainly hasn't been employed to any effect. If, in the current climate, the Trust pushes just a little more and the club violently resists, I think LCFC would be extremely unwise to do so. I don't think any body representing the voice of the fans should be emphasising the decency of the board right now more than they're emphasising the questions that need to be asked of them. If they are doing this (and, not for the first time, they are), then I don't see how the leverage they aspire to have could, in any way, be productive. I'm not asking for scorched Earth stuff, and I wasn't the last time that one of the Trust's statements came across as benign as this one does. I'm expecting their rhetoric to reflect the gravity of the situation if they're expecting the fanbase as a whole to feel it's voicing their concerns.

[bmt]

31 minutes ago, Harpenden Fox said:

It’s totally clear that if Foxes Trust board members were as confrontational as some of the keyboard based contributors on this thread would have them be, they would be excluded completely. Such is the challenge we face. Better to at least have some leverage than none at all

I don't agree. This would be true if there was any leverage, but from what we've seen there isn't and the club don't even bother to answer the questions. It would show more and have more power if the club was excluding the trust than the trust doing absolutely nothing to represent the fans.

[fazzyfox]

1 hour ago, Chelmofox said:

If you don't mind me asking, when you say you 'met with the club', what does that actually mean? Do you actually get to meet any of the board or do you meet a separate representative? Its great you have a dialog, but unless that representation is with someone remotely responsible or accountable you are just going to be fed 3rd hand information.

[Chelmofox]

1 minute ago, fazzyfox said:

 

 

Edited 3 April by Chelmofox

[ThumbsUp]

37 minutes ago, Harpenden Fox said:

It’s totally clear that if Foxes Trust board members were as confrontational as some of the keyboard based contributors on this thread would have them be, they would be excluded completely. Such is the challenge we face. Better to at least have some leverage than none at all

If the Trust doesn't ask the difficult questions then it might as well not exist. If the club blacklist the trust it will at least send a message to the wider world about the relationship between the board and the fans, which would get picked up by media and potentially lead to change. It's clear the current policy of soft questions and needy actions isn't having any effect anyway, so if they tried at least there'd be a chance.