Foxes Trust Reform - show your support!

[kiddo]

I’m in. About time I took a more active role instead of just moaning.

[Gamble92]

I should take lead on this tbh. Too many hot heads around

[iancognito]

On 13/05/2024 at 18:30, davieG said:

I've joined and agree with many of the aims put forward on this thread.

 

Not mentioned that I know of...

I would like to see more nods to our history and the stadium to look more like the home of LCFC rather than KPFC. Whatever happened to the Museum.

 

Outside the Stadium it's nearly all KP wth the only physical 'Icon' being the statue which I have no problem with but where are the reminders of our previous successes on the pitch and our past 'Legends'

 

Inside the stadium the banner proudly claims King Power, 1884,  LCFC Badge and hidden behind the big screens Leicester City FC. A visitor might conceive we are KPFC founded in 1884 as nowhere else of any significance do we see much of Leicester City FC

100% agreement on all of this. There is no indication of our history pre-2010, even that a World Cup winner played for us, just King Power branding. Selling "retro" shirts from  8 years ago and playing a video pre- match is just paying lip service to 125 years pre-Thai ownership

[VLC86]

Joined this to try to influence positive change rather than moaning about the mistakes.

[Bluearmyfox28]

Emailed, count me in.

[foxinsocks]

I joined the Foxes Trust to help make it a group that represent all fans - who will speak up....  so that the club engages with fans and becomes a club that values its supporters - rather then seeing us as customers.  The Supporters Trust plays a key part in this -  so we need a trust that is strong (through numbers) and outspoken.  Yet before March the membership had dwindled and the trust seemed out of touch with the many fans.  So now, it is essential that the Trust represents all fans - and that means engaging with the different fans groups as well as surveying all supporters.  With enough support we can change the Foxes Trust so that it champions the opinions of the fans and facilitates engagement between the club and fans.

[winnie the blue]

What are the Trusts views on VAR I wonder.  Will they advise the club how fans want them to vote? 

Edited 15 May by winnie the blue

[the draper]

19 minutes ago, winnie the blue said:

What are the Trusts views on VAR I wonder.  Will they advise the club how fans want them to vote? 

Club don't get a vote I believe 

[Splodgefox]

Can someone more knowledgeable than me please explain or justify why the proposed Fan Advisory Board (FAB) should comprise 50/50 representation between supporters and club officials?

LCFC and the FT have agreed this in principle and although not finalised I just don't understand this at all.

It seems bizarre and the clue is in the name - surely it should be 100% fan?

Yes the FAB and the club should work together but clearly as two separate entities, with distinct perspectives.
I checked a few Premier League FABs and the majority don't seem to have ANY club officials, apart from Man Utd, and even they have a fan majority.

[winnie the blue]

37 minutes ago, the draper said:

Club don't get a vote I believe 

The vote will be held in June.  I thought we become a member of the EPL from 1 June.

[winnie the blue]

35 minutes ago, winnie the blue said:

The vote will be held in June.  I thought we become a member of the EPL from 1 June.

Just read elsewhere that we 'transfer' on July 1

[Foxes_Trust]

3 hours ago, Splodgefox said:

Can someone more knowledgeable than me please explain or justify why the proposed Fan Advisory Board (FAB) should comprise 50/50 representation between supporters and club officials?

LCFC and the FT have agreed this in principle and although not finalised I just don't understand this at all.

It seems bizarre and the clue is in the name - surely it should be 100% fan?

Yes the FAB and the club should work together but clearly as two separate entities, with distinct perspectives.
I checked a few Premier League FABs and the majority don't seem to have ANY club officials, apart from Man Utd, and even they have a fan majority.

The FAB is a consultation body between fans and the club, so if it was 100% fans, the club wouldn't be there, so no consultation would take place !

 

Both the fan representatives and the club representatives can put forward items to be discussed on the agenda of each meeting

 

Some FAB's are chaired by a club rep (usually the board representative given the overall lead remit for the FAB), some are chaired by a fan (usually from the Trust) and many are co-chaired by the club & fan rep.

 

[AlexFT]

Probably first and foremost, the Trust needs to become more in line with the size of the club and fanbase. In terms of its standing, the Trust is way behind where it needs to be and this is even clearer when compared to other clubs.

 

The relationship with the club needs to change, a prime example of this was the access to Seagrave for the AGM which irked me. Let's be honest, the club would never open up this opportunity for Union FS and that says a lot in itself. 

 

It also seems the culture within the Trust needs to change, and long-term members/those on the board level must surely understand that if the fanbase was being represented well enough, there wouldn't have been such a movement already. 

 

I've said before that amongst all the other concerns surrounding the club, a key area which needs addressing is our reputation and this is one of the main reasons for my decision to join.

 

We're arguably the most ridiculed club in the Midlands and I can't stand that, but I would suggest senior members of the Trust wouldn't see it this way. In fairness, not enough of the fanbase do either for my liking. 

Edited 16 May by AlexFT

[Splodgefox]

17 hours ago, Foxes_Trust said:

The FAB is a consultation body between fans and the club, so if it was 100% fans, the club wouldn't be there, so no consultation would take place !

 

Both the fan representatives and the club representatives can put forward items to be discussed on the agenda of each meeting

 

Some FAB's are chaired by a club rep (usually the board representative given the overall lead remit for the FAB), some are chaired by a fan (usually from the Trust) and many are co-chaired by the club & fan rep.

 

I do appeciate the response but if you do a web search for "Fans Advisory Board composition" you will see what I mean. They generally comprise ONLY supporters representatives who of course advise and engage with their football clubs - see Everton as just one example out of many.

It doesn't appear to be true that "no consultation would take place" otherwise supporter led compositions would not exist, and indeed they make up the most frequent FAB set up (and with good reason).

It's probably unwise to debate this further on a messageboard but needless to say, at present I strongly disagree with your notion of how a FAB should be comprised, and you appear to have yielded early on to LCFC.

Happy to stand corrected but for now I will watch with interest.

[Col city fan]

I joined the Foxes Trust because I can’t stand groups that purely exist for their own self gain and comfort. This is not the raison detre of a group like this. It needs to be a little militant, outspoken and questioning. It also needs to be representative of the fan base.

It seems I’m not the only one to think this way, it looks like people have a taste for change at the moment. 

[Foxes_Trust]

5 hours ago, Splodgefox said:

I do appeciate the response but if you do a web search for "Fans Advisory Board composition" you will see what I mean. They generally comprise ONLY supporters representatives who of course advise and engage with their football clubs - see Everton as just one example out of many.

It doesn't appear to be true that "no consultation would take place" otherwise supporter led compositions would not exist, and indeed they make up the most frequent FAB set up (and with good reason).

It's probably unwise to debate this further on a messageboard but needless to say, at present I strongly disagree with your notion of how a FAB should be comprised, and you appear to have yielded early on to LCFC.

Happy to stand corrected but for now I will watch with interest.

If you look at the minutes of FAB meetings, you will see both the club and fans have representatives, it just seems to be that some clubs don't list their staff representatives other than in the minutes, but do list the fans.

 

However the Man Utd FAB is listed as follows:

7 x fan members

- A fan Co-Chairperson
- Two elected Fans' Forum members
- Two representatives of the Manchester United Supporters Trust ('MUST')
- Two joint club-fan co-appointees

6 x club members
- A club Co-Chairperson
- Up to five senior club representatives
- One of the club's Executive Co-Chairmen will attend FAB meetings on a regular basis (at least one per season)

 

 

 

[brucey]

10 hours ago, Foxes_Trust said:

If you look at the minutes of FAB meetings, you will see both the club and fans have representatives, it just seems to be that some clubs don't list their staff representatives other than in the minutes, but do list the fans.

Everton's FAB is fan-only and most of their meetings are without club representatives

https://efc-fanadvisoryboard.com/meetings/

 

 

Edited 17 May by brucey

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

On 14/05/2024 at 22:17, iancognito said:

100% agreement on all of this. There is no indication of our history pre-2010, even that a World Cup winner played for us, just King Power branding. Selling "retro" shirts from  8 years ago and playing a video pre- match is just paying lip service to 125 years pre-Thai ownership

I suppose there are nods to legends in the pre match video that whips the crowd up. But that’s it really, and the odd concourse bar named after some of them.

[Daggers]

8 hours ago, brucey said:

Everton's FAB have meetings without club representatives

https://efc-fanadvisoryboard.com/meetings/

 

In addition to their quarterly meetings with a board member

[Sol thewall Bamba]

8 hours ago, brucey said:

Everton's FAB is fan-only and most of their meetings are without club representatives

https://efc-fanadvisoryboard.com/meetings/

 

Feel it's very important that whoever ends up on the FAB meets like this without the club semi-regularly. 

 

The club will be relying on being able to sweep this under the rug as much as possible, like they do with any fan engagement. They'll be banking on the FAB representatives being unorganised and being basically able to bullshit their way through the minimum number of meetings per season, fobbing off any topics to the next meeting infinitely. 

 

Meeting without them, allows the FAB members to align on the topics they want to discuss, so they can go into the meetings on the same page and ready to hold the club to account on topics. The Foxestrust reform stuff came from the UFS fan forum, held without the club. 

 

Organisation is the only way forward. 

[Splodgefox]

12 hours ago, Foxes_Trust said:

If you look at the minutes of FAB meetings, you will see both the club and fans have representatives, it just seems to be that some clubs don't list their staff representatives other than in the minutes, but do list the fans.

 

However the Man Utd FAB is listed as follows:

7 x fan members

- A fan Co-Chairperson
- Two elected Fans' Forum members
- Two representatives of the Manchester United Supporters Trust ('MUST')
- Two joint club-fan co-appointees

6 x club members
- A club Co-Chairperson
- Up to five senior club representatives
- One of the club's Executive Co-Chairmen will attend FAB meetings on a regular basis (at least one per season)

 

 

 

No disrespect intended but you're referring to a potentially rare exception in Man Utd, and I named them in my original post so that seems like a very selective use of facts there. I wish I had time to look at the whole PL but I looked at the FAB composition of about 8 or 9 and there only a couple that were a hybrid of fans/club. I was after a rough indication of the wider picture to save me the trouble.

[Lako42]

Wasn't the FT set-up after donations from the entire wider fanbase with the intention of helping to save the club from administration? 

 

Seems a bit of a slap in the face to everyone who dug deep during that time and put money in their buckets that they now decide to serve only the views of themselves............and the club. 

[Foxes_Trust]

11 hours ago, Lako42 said:

Wasn't the FT set-up after donations from the entire wider fanbase with the intention of helping to save the club from administration? 

 

Seems a bit of a slap in the face to everyone who dug deep during that time and put money in their buckets that they now decide to serve only the views of themselves............and the club. 

As a counter argument based on having a paid membership, surely members should expect their board to serve them ahead of fans who pay nothing & then expect to be represented

 

Hence becoming a member to influence the future direction of the Trust, as many have in recent months

 

This doesn't mean the Trust will only listen to members views, but some of the consultation and sharing of information (via a members newsletter) should be with members only

[Foxes_Trust]

13 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Feel it's very important that whoever ends up on the FAB meets like this without the club semi-regularly. 

 

The club will be relying on being able to sweep this under the rug as much as possible, like they do with any fan engagement. They'll be banking on the FAB representatives being unorganised and being basically able to bullshit their way through the minimum number of meetings per season, fobbing off any topics to the next meeting infinitely. 

 

Meeting without them, allows the FAB members to align on the topics they want to discuss, so they can go into the meetings on the same page and ready to hold the club to account on topics. The Foxestrust reform stuff came from the UFS fan forum, held without the club. 

 

Organisation is the only way forward. 

The "official" FAB meetings involve the Fans & the Club Reps.

 

Of course the Fans on the FAB will speak separately, but will also be arranging meetings with other fans, on specific topics. As one example the 2 fans elected from the Fans Consultative Committee will be expected to report back to the full FCC attendees and then represent the views of the FCC members at the FAB meetings. All fan groups are represented on the FCC. 

[Foxes_Trust]

On 16/05/2024 at 13:12, AlexFT said:

Probably first and foremost, the Trust needs to become more in line with the size of the club and fanbase. In terms of its standing, the Trust is way behind where it needs to be and this is even clearer when compared to other clubs.

 

The relationship with the club needs to change, a prime example of this was the access to Seagrave for the AGM which irked me. Let's be honest, the club would never open up this opportunity for Union FS and that says a lot in itself. 

 

It also seems the culture within the Trust needs to change, and long-term members/those on the board level must surely understand that if the fanbase was being represented well enough, there wouldn't have been such a movement already. 

 

I've said before that amongst all the other concerns surrounding the club, a key area which needs addressing is our reputation and this is one of the main reasons for my decision to join.

 

We're arguably the most ridiculed club in the Midlands and I can't stand that, but I would suggest senior members of the Trust wouldn't see it this way. In fairness, not enough of the fanbase do either for my liking. 

The Trust has held its AGM at the club every year since its existence, and this is the first year that anyone has raised a concern about it.

 

The only thing that has changed is that club representatives have sat in on the AGM for the past few years and that is something the board will review

 

The Official Supporters Club & the DSA used to hold its annual awards at the club too, until the club stopped the event by not permitting the players to attend a number of years ago. We still believe that event should be re-introduced.