Early AGM: Your Chance To Change The Foxes Trust

[ramboacdc]

3 hours ago, RYM said:

How many of the board are against this new proposal?

 

This has all the makings of a Scooby Doo “we would’ve gotten away with it if it wasn’t for you pesky kids”…

 

5 minutes ago, Foxes_Trust said:

The entire board is against the proposal, it is not in line with the FSA model rules (originally drawn up by Supporters Direct, before the FSF & SD merger)

 

Turkey's usually don't vote for Christmas. There needs to be something in place to make it simpler to remove board members apart from CoC breaches. Right now it just feels like the trust is a bunch of folks playing pretend and having meetings and making minutes for fun, with some people on the board taking it a lot more serious than others for sure. 

 

Hoping everything is fair and transparent.

[Foxes_Trust]

6 hours ago, foxinsocks said:

To be clear.... the board are saying that board members can only be removed if they breach the code of conduct... but this does not cover the situation where a board member has lost the confidence of members.

Further, other trusts have such a rule to remove a board member... in fact the wording of the resolution is taken from such an "FSA approved" example. 

 

It was when we submitted the previous request to ask the trust to remove some board members that the FSA clarified that this could not be carried out as our trust had no rule enabling the  removal of directors... unlike other trusts. Hence the need to add a right to enable members to terminate board appointments.

 

Our reforms seek to boost membership so that the club can not ignore the trust.  Yet to attract members they have to believe that the board is accountable to the membership... so that we move away from the more cynical views of the past.  This is about democracy.

 

We need to clarify the "other trusts have such a rule to remove a board member" comment above - would you like to detail a full list ? 

 

That appears to imply it is common place, in reality it's an exception to have this in place, with over 140 Trust's they all created their rules based on the model rules created by Supporters Direct, and the FSA are currently reviewing the model rules and have no plans to incorporate such an amendment, as they feel Trust's have adequate democratic principals and protocols in place which also follow good governance procedures complying with the Financial Conduct Authority.

 

 

[Globalfox]

27 minutes ago, Foxes_Trust said:

We need to clarify the "other trusts have such a rule to remove a board member" comment above - would you like to detail a full list ? 

 

That appears to imply it is common place, in reality it's an exception to have this in place, with over 140 Trust's they all created their rules based on the model rules created by Supporters Direct, and the FSA are currently reviewing the model rules and have no plans to incorporate such an amendment, as they feel Trust's have adequate democratic principals and protocols in place which also follow good governance procedures complying with the Financial Conduct Authority.

 

 

Not sure the ‘lemming’ argument is a good one. Just because everyone else does it that way does not automatically make it right. I would like to hear the why the current board fears what appears to be a democratic reasonable rule. To remove someone would still require 2/3rd majority in favor. If an individual in a position of leadership has lost the confidence of 2/3rds of the membership why would you want them to continue? 

 

[CockneyFox]

28 minutes ago, Foxes_Trust said:

We need to clarify the "other trusts have such a rule to remove a board member" comment above - would you like to detail a full list ? 

 

That appears to imply it is common place, in reality it's an exception to have this in place, with over 140 Trust's they all created their rules based on the model rules created by Supporters Direct, and the FSA are currently reviewing the model rules and have no plans to incorporate such an amendment, as they feel Trust's have adequate democratic principals and protocols in place which also follow good governance procedures complying with the Financial Conduct Authority.

 

 

Your argument for opposing this motion appears to be solely based on claim(s) that other Trusts don’t do it, which is a bit like shopping for a new car, only to buy a bicycle because your next door neighbour doesn’t drive. It’s daft, and the optics - at a critical juncture for the Trust as the AGM approaches - are rather bad to put it mildly.

 

You’re either not listening to, or not recognising, the critical need for reform. Which only makes the argument for reform ever stronger.

[RYM]

1 hour ago, Foxes_Trust said:

The entire board is against the proposal, it is not in line with the FSA model rules (originally drawn up by Supporters Direct, before the FSF & SD merger)

Are they though?

Definitely a couple of members on that board who know of the dead wood holding the trust back. Safety in numbers? 
 

Hopefully this challenge by Reform will continue to expose massive flaws in the system like this. Could be the catalyst for change all clubs need.

 

That merger was in 2018, SD was formed in 2000 so that’s rules that are possibly 25 years old. Are you happy they are still relevant?

Times change. Change is good. Maybe to move with the times you should be asking the FSA to revise those regulations? No harm in that? Worth seeing if they need to evolve?
 

Thanks for the reply and for not emailing or phoning me this time 🦊

[Wymsey]

1 hour ago, RYM said:

Are they though?

Definitely a couple of members on that board who know of the dead wood holding the trust back. Safety in numbers? 
 

Hopefully this challenge by Reform will continue to expose massive flaws in the system like this. Could be the catalyst for change all clubs need.

 

That merger was in 2018, SD was formed in 2000 so that’s rules that are possibly 25 years old. Are you happy they are still relevant?

Times change. Change is good. Maybe to move with the times you should be asking the FSA to revise those regulations? No harm in that? Worth seeing if they need to evolve?
 

Thanks for the reply and for not emailing or phoning me this time 🦊

Why don't you join the Trust, given your background that you've mentioned in the past?

[RYM]

10 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Why don't you join the Trust, given your background that you've mentioned in the past?

I did. Tried. Offered a lot of help and insight into how a club operate / fob off fan groups etc etc. How to hold them accountable, what questions to ask, how to challenge them so internally they can’t collaborate against fan groups.

 

Tried to inject a level of urgency to question the club when the club this preseason were all over the shop and shafting us all financially. 
 

The long and short of it is those involved apart from Steve (IMO) don’t have any bollocks to challenge the club. They don’t want to upset them. Ian was on a journey to get a seat on the FAB so now I understand why.

When the club were continually late for their own deadlines regarding the fan engagement plan (after saying it was a priority) I was shut down by Bason and Alan Digby saying “give them more time” every time they missed a deadline rather than taking it above those involved.

That on top of anything, and I mean anything negative towards the club or its staff, protests etc being ignored. 

At that point I walked away. It was a total waste of my time, it started affecting my mental health a bit and my family time which is valuable to me.
 

I gave 10 years to football changing the way the “fan experience” is shaped. I’m proud of what I achieved, I made a lot of mistakes too but I helped a lot of clubs and fans. Just a shame IMO that the trust (Ian and Alan primarily ) didn’t want to listen so I could offer something to our club.

I wish reform all the best in what they are doing. Harry and Jamie are doing it for the right reasons.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

7 hours ago, RYM said:

I did. Tried. Offered a lot of help and insight into how a club operate / fob off fan groups etc etc. How to hold them accountable, what questions to ask, how to challenge them so internally they can’t collaborate against fan groups.

 

Tried to inject a level of urgency to question the club when the club this preseason were all over the shop and shafting us all financially. 
 

The long and short of it is those involved apart from Steve (IMO) don’t have any bollocks to challenge the club. They don’t want to upset them. Ian was on a journey to get a seat on the FAB so now I understand why.

When the club were continually late for their own deadlines regarding the fan engagement plan (after saying it was a priority) I was shut down by Bason and Alan Digby saying “give them more time” every time they missed a deadline rather than taking it above those involved.

That on top of anything, and I mean anything negative towards the club or its staff, protests etc being ignored. 

At that point I walked away. It was a total waste of my time, it started affecting my mental health a bit and my family time which is valuable to me.
 

I gave 10 years to football changing the way the “fan experience” is shaped. I’m proud of what I achieved, I made a lot of mistakes too but I helped a lot of clubs and fans. Just a shame IMO that the trust (Ian and Alan primarily ) didn’t want to listen so I could offer something to our club.

I wish reform all the best in what they are doing. Harry and Jamie are doing it for the right reasons.

 

The Fan Engagement Framework plan is now back on track, as the second FAB meeting was held in November and the next FCC Working Group meeting is scheduled for January, so the slight delays in the summer, to ensure the method for establishing the FAB fan reps had the full involvement of both the Trust and the FSA was achieved which was our prime concern at that time.

 

The FSA have stated they were happy with the process used and its now being looked at by other clubs.

[RYM]

44 minutes ago, Foxes_Trust said:

The Fan Engagement Framework plan is now back on track, as the second FAB meeting was held in November and the next FCC Working Group meeting is scheduled for January, so the slight delays in the summer, to ensure the method for establishing the FAB fan reps had the full involvement of both the Trust and the FSA was achieved which was our prime concern at that time.

 

The FSA have stated they were happy with the process used and its now being looked at by other clubs.

Back on Track? It was never on track. They played you all summer.

You didn’t answer the other questions about the regulations potentially being 25 years old and if you were happy with that? If it was worth revising? You ignore what you choose to, like you did in those meetings and group chats.

 

The FAB set up is utter nonsense and just another table to sit at pandering to Anthony + half the payroll while he laughs at you to progress his own career. It’s merely a barrier to silence fan groups further.

 

You know fine well the club haven’t created the FAB to help fans, they created it so they can showcase it to other clubs “look at us”, you’re now pushing that nonsense on here!! Wild!!!

If they cared about the FAB or the fancy framework document they would’ve continued with it when we dropped down to the EFL. As you know (and agreed with me but failed to challenge the club) they stopped when we went down as an FAB isn’t an EFL requirement. If it’s “best practice” and they respected their fans why wouldn’t they continue to get ahead of the game?

 

You failed to do this throughout a summer when the fans needed you

• To hold Leicester City Football Club and its owners to account for the highest standards of business management, and operational and commercial decisions that directly affect Foxes Trust members and the wider supporter base.

You also seem to be completely unaware that in order for the trust to actually be taken seriously or to have any credibility whatsoever there needs to be a movement or significant change. You fight everything that demands change. It’s self preservation of the highest level. 
 

Change is good. Embrace it and if you’re doing such a good job, you’ve nothing to worry about.

[Ashley]

2 hours ago, RYM said:

Back on Track? It was never on track. They played you all summer.

You didn’t answer the other questions about the regulations potentially being 25 years old and if you were happy with that? If it was worth revising? You ignore what you choose to, like you did in those meetings and group chats.

 

The FAB set up is utter nonsense and just another table to sit at pandering to Anthony + half the payroll while he laughs at you to progress his own career. It’s merely a barrier to silence fan groups further.

 

You know fine well the club haven’t created the FAB to help fans, they created it so they can showcase it to other clubs “look at us”, you’re now pushing that nonsense on here!! Wild!!!

If they cared about the FAB or the fancy framework document they would’ve continued with it when we dropped down to the EFL. As you know (and agreed with me but failed to challenge the club) they stopped when we went down as an FAB isn’t an EFL requirement. If it’s “best practice” and they respected their fans why wouldn’t they continue to get ahead of the game?

 

You failed to do this throughout a summer when the fans needed you

• To hold Leicester City Football Club and its owners to account for the highest standards of business management, and operational and commercial decisions that directly affect Foxes Trust members and the wider supporter base.

You also seem to be completely unaware that in order for the trust to actually be taken seriously or to have any credibility whatsoever there needs to be a movement or significant change. You fight everything that demands change. It’s self preservation of the highest level. 
 

Change is good. Embrace it and if you’re doing such a good job, you’ve nothing to worry about.

Someone got the mic drop gif? 

[Lako42]

20 hours ago, Foxes_Trust said:

We need to clarify the "other trusts have such a rule to remove a board member" comment above - would you like to detail a full list ? 

 

That appears to imply it is common place, in reality it's an exception to have this in place, with over 140 Trust's they all created their rules based on the model rules created by Supporters Direct, and the FSA are currently reviewing the model rules and have no plans to incorporate such an amendment, as they feel Trust's have adequate democratic principals and protocols in place which also follow good governance procedures complying with the Financial Conduct Authority.

 

 

Perhaps the other trusts are fit for purpose?? 

[Skidmark]

I'm surprised people respect groups like the Foxes Trust and believe they can do any good. They don't represent the wishes of the fans, they just are there for the free tea at the meetings and to look good in the eyes of the club. 
 

If you want real representation of the fans, look what people like Mark Goldbridge are doing at United. They cut the money to the charity, through that community they're attempting to raise £40,000 for the former players funeral costs charity.

 

The Foxes Trust have always, and will always be a means for out of touch fans to cuddle up to the club. It's a group for Yes men. You want to make change? Then don't listen to this group of people.

 

Why Foxestalk has never had a fan group/seat at the table with the club I do not know. It's the largest and most popular medium for people discussing the club. It could be a force of good, regular meetings/gatherings. 

[Wymsey]

10 hours ago, RYM said:

Back on Track? It was never on track. They played you all summer.

You didn’t answer the other questions about the regulations potentially being 25 years old and if you were happy with that? If it was worth revising? You ignore what you choose to, like you did in those meetings and group chats.

 

The FAB set up is utter nonsense and just another table to sit at pandering to Anthony + half the payroll while he laughs at you to progress his own career. It’s merely a barrier to silence fan groups further.

 

You know fine well the club haven’t created the FAB to help fans, they created it so they can showcase it to other clubs “look at us”, you’re now pushing that nonsense on here!! Wild!!!

If they cared about the FAB or the fancy framework document they would’ve continued with it when we dropped down to the EFL. As you know (and agreed with me but failed to challenge the club) they stopped when we went down as an FAB isn’t an EFL requirement. If it’s “best practice” and they respected their fans why wouldn’t they continue to get ahead of the game?

 

You failed to do this throughout a summer when the fans needed you

• To hold Leicester City Football Club and its owners to account for the highest standards of business management, and operational and commercial decisions that directly affect Foxes Trust members and the wider supporter base.

You also seem to be completely unaware that in order for the trust to actually be taken seriously or to have any credibility whatsoever there needs to be a movement or significant change. You fight everything that demands change. It’s self preservation of the highest level. 
 

Change is good. Embrace it and if you’re doing such a good job, you’ve nothing to worry about.

What's the issue with the Foxes Trust?

[filbertway]

21 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

What's the issue with the Foxes Trust?

Wymesy he's literally replied to your last question with a break down of issues about 6 posts up.

 

I don't know what more you want from the guy unless you're just on the wind up?

 

 

[SemperEadem]

2 hours ago, Skidmark said:

I'm surprised people respect groups like the Foxes Trust and believe they can do any good. They don't represent the wishes of the fans, they just are there for the free tea at the meetings and to look good in the eyes of the club. 
 

If you want real representation of the fans, look what people like Mark Goldbridge are doing at United. They cut the money to the charity, through that community they're attempting to raise £40,000 for the former players funeral costs charity.

 

The Foxes Trust have always, and will always be a means for out of touch fans to cuddle up to the club. It's a group for Yes men. You want to make change? Then don't listen to this group of people.

 

Why Foxestalk has never had a fan group/seat at the table with the club I do not know. It's the largest and most popular medium for people discussing the club. It could be a force of good, regular meetings/gatherings. 

Additional fan groups are really needed.

 

One thing though is you don't get a meeting with the the club outside of the FAB unless you are Foxes Pride.

[Skidmark]

52 minutes ago, SemperEadem said:

Additional fan groups are really needed.

 

One thing though is you don't get a meeting with the the club outside of the FAB unless you are Foxes Pride.

You don't need a meeting to force change through sometimes.

 

Like you guys are doing. Be vocal and as loud as you can be in the ground, online etc. But yeah, I'm so surprised we haven't got a fan group on here. Some of us have been here over a decade, yet have not got together as a force for change.

[SemperEadem]

1 minute ago, Skidmark said:

You don't need a meeting to force change through sometimes.

 

Like you guys are doing. Be vocal and as loud as you can be in the ground, online etc. But yeah, I'm so surprised we haven't got a fan group on here. Some of us have been here over a decade, yet have not got together as a force for change.

I really think you do to actually achieve changes.

We are not a fanbase that supports each other, neither do we have a club that cares about its supporters. 
To get close to real changes I think the general apathy of the fans has to go and more fan groups that are united together.

[Kinowe Soorie]

3 hours ago, Skidmark said:

Why Foxestalk has never had a fan group/seat at the table with the club I do not know. It's the largest and most popular medium for people discussing the club. It could be a force of good, regular meetings/gatherings. 

Because it would cause the biggest punch up Leicester has ever witnessed!!

Edited 3 January by Kinowe Soorie

[Foxes Trust Reform]

On 03/01/2025 at 09:27, Skidmark said:

I'm surprised people respect groups like the Foxes Trust and believe they can do any good. They don't represent the wishes of the fans, they just are there for the free tea at the meetings and to look good in the eyes of the club. 
 

If you want real representation of the fans, look what people like Mark Goldbridge are doing at United. They cut the money to the charity, through that community they're attempting to raise £40,000 for the former players funeral costs charity.

 

The Foxes Trust have always, and will always be a means for out of touch fans to cuddle up to the club. It's a group for Yes men. You want to make change? Then don't listen to this group of people.

 

Why Foxestalk has never had a fan group/seat at the table with the club I do not know. It's the largest and most popular medium for people discussing the club. It could be a force of good, regular meetings/gatherings. 

This is only true if people stand by the sidelines watching and criticising though.

 

The Trust, by its nature, is a democratic organisation. This means it's only as effective as its member base and its board that is elected by that member base.

 

We believe if enough people join, and shape it into the organisation they want it to be, it can be better and do more.

[Foxes Trust Reform]

We wanted to provide a couple of updates regarding the upcoming vote on our Resolution to the change the rules of the Foxes Trust so that a board member who has lost the confidence of the membership base can be removed (via 66% of the vote).

 

Not only have the current Foxes Trust board advised members to vote against the rule change, they have also suggested they may table an amendment to the Resolution to increase the required vote share to 75% rather than the 66% in our original Resolution (which was determined based upon advice from the Football Supporters Association). We are trying to show them that trying to increase the barrier to change - should the rules be changed by vote - is not a good look, and isn't necessary. After all, if 66% of voters have lost confidence in a board member to continue their role, isn't that more than enough?!

 

We hope they will see that 66% is a reasonable number and not table an amendment to the Resolution. Should they decide to do so, however, we understand this amendment will be voted on at the AGM on Monday 13th January (7:30pm at the KP) with a postal vote/online vote thereafter on the Resolution itself.

 

It's therefore really important that current Foxes Trust members who are supportive of reform and changing the rules either a) attend the AGM (in-person or online) or b) nominate a proxy if they cannot attend.

 

How?

 

• Current Foxes Trust members who wish to attend online need to email [email protected] before 10th January to ask for the dial-in details
   
• Current Foxes Trust members who cannot attend but wish to have the Foxes Trust Chair act as their proxy need to email [email protected] to request this and provide their voting instruction (our recommendation is to vote AGAINST any amendment to the Resolution but IN FAVOUR OF the Resolution itself as amended or not) also before 10th January. We have created an email template for those who would like to use it - please request via DM or by emailing [email protected].
   

We believe this rule change is an important step to keep board members accountable to the wider membership, show the wider fan base that the Trust is open to change when those at the top are not doing enough and help the board to operate with greater agility and effectiveness by removing those doing little or not representing the fan base on key issues well enough.

 

If you are a current Foxes Trust member, please support our rule change Resolution in the coming weeks! 

Edited 6 January by Foxes Trust Reform

[Bourbon Fox]

On 02/01/2025 at 12:17, Foxes_Trust said:

We need to clarify the "other trusts have such a rule to remove a board member" comment above - would you like to detail a full list ? 

 

That appears to imply it is common place, in reality it's an exception to have this in place, with over 140 Trust's they all created their rules based on the model rules created by Supporters Direct, and the FSA are currently reviewing the model rules and have no plans to incorporate such an amendment, as they feel Trust's have adequate democratic principals and protocols in place which also follow good governance procedures complying with the Financial Conduct Authority.

 

 

It would be better if you said, "As a responsibly-governed democratic organisation established to represent the views and wishes of the fans, we would of course welcome and enact such a change if voted for by a majority of members"

Edited 6 January by Bourbon Fox

[Wymsey]

Does the Foxes Trust engage with other fan groups at the club, for example Foxes Pride?

[The_77]

14 hours ago, Foxes Trust Reform said:

We wanted to provide a couple of updates regarding the upcoming vote on our Resolution to the change the rules of the Foxes Trust so that a board member who has lost the confidence of the membership base can be removed (via 66% of the vote).

 

Not only have the current Foxes Trust board advised members to vote against the rule change, they have also suggested they may table an amendment to the Resolution to increase the required vote share to 75% rather than the 66% in our original Resolution (which was determined based upon advice from the Football Supporters Association). We are trying to show them that trying to increase the barrier to change - should the rules be changed by vote - is not a good look, and isn't necessary. After all, if 66% of voters have lost confidence in a board member to continue their role, isn't that more than enough?!

 

We hope they will see that 66% is a reasonable number and not table an amendment to the Resolution. Should they decide to do so, however, we understand this amendment will be voted on at the AGM on Monday 13th January (7:30pm at the KP) with a postal vote/online vote thereafter on the Resolution itself.

 

It's therefore really important that current Foxes Trust members who are supportive of reform and changing the rules either a) attend the AGM (in-person or online) or b) nominate a proxy if they cannot attend.

 

How?

 

• Current Foxes Trust members who wish to attend online need to email [email protected] before 10th January to ask for the dial-in details
   
• Current Foxes Trust members who cannot attend but wish to have the Foxes Trust Chair act as their proxy need to email [email protected] to request this and provide their voting instruction (our recommendation is to vote AGAINST any amendment to the Resolution but IN FAVOUR OF the Resolution itself as amended or not) also before 10th January. We have created an email template for those who would like to use it - please request via DM or by emailing [email protected].
   

We believe this rule change is an important step to keep board members accountable to the wider membership, show the wider fan base that the Trust is open to change when those at the top are not doing enough and help the board to operate with greater agility and effectiveness by removing those doing little or not representing the fan base on key issues well enough.

 

If you are a current Foxes Trust member, please support our rule change Resolution in the coming weeks! 

I agree that the membership should have the ability to oust ineffective or negligent board members, or board members who are not carrying out the interests of the Trust, but is the motion just based on 66% of total votes cast? There should be a minimum threshold of total votes/percentage of membership voting to avoid a small number of members sneaking a vote through. 

[Daggers]

[RYM]

11 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Alan Digby is a huge part of the problem with the trust.

What relevance is the wording of emails!
I would also suggest that him disclosing this is a data protection issue?

Templates are often created for ease and so people get the wording correct, that in turn makes his life easier.

 

Edited 7 January by RYM