Early AGM: Your Chance To Change The Foxes Trust

[Globalfox]

4 minutes ago, Daggers said:

You mean like minded people cannot collaborate or is yes I support the motion is considered the same wording? Do the board members realize that responses such as this make some of us wonder is this really a fair and open democratic process. As a foxes trust member I am becoming more and more concerned. Point 2 should never have been made

[Foxes Trust Reform]

Thankfully, the Trust have today confirmed that they are not now going to table an amendment to change the resolution from 66%+ of the vote being required to remove a board member to 75%+.

 

We welcome that news as it means that, if the Resolution is passed and the rules are changed, the 66%+ of the vote will be enough to remove someone that the membership has lost confidence in.

 

We will still need members to vote on the Resolution itself (in order to see the rules changed) and this will go to an online/postal vote post-AGM.

[Foxes Trust Reform]

13 minutes ago, Daggers said:

It's great to see that members are exercising their right to nominate a Proxy to vote as they wish and that people are doing this ahead of the 10th January deadline!

 

It is our view that it's not up to Alan to pass comment on the wording people have used and whether they have used a template to express their wishes.

 

We've learned over the past year of this campaign that dealing with the Trust - and associated policies and procedures - entails a lot of language and terminology that, although necessary for legalities and compliance, could be off-putting or exclusionary for the average football fan just wanting their Supporters Trust to represent them better. Breaking down some of those barriers and making it easier for members to participate/express their democratic right should not be seen as suspicious or negative.

 

Should any other Foxes Trust members wish to nominate a Proxy to vote in favour of the Resolution, and not be sure on how to word this in their email, please reach out to us!

 

 

 

[Daggers]

2 minutes ago, Foxes Trust Reform said:

Thankfully, the Trust have today confirmed that they are not now going to table an amendment to change the resolution from 66%+ of the vote being required to remove a board member to 75%+.

 

We welcome that news as it means that, if the Resolution is passed and the rules are changed, the 66%+ of the vote will be enough to remove someone that the membership has lost confidence in.

 

We will still need members to vote on the Resolution itself (in order to see the rules changed) and this will go to an online/postal vote post-AGM.

I think you’ll need a tally of people like me who have sent emails to Digby because we want our votes done by proxy. I find the tone of his confirmation troubling. Predictable, but troubling. 

[The_77]

24 minutes ago, Foxes Trust Reform said:

Thankfully, the Trust have today confirmed that they are not now going to table an amendment to change the resolution from 66%+ of the vote being required to remove a board member to 75%+.

 

We welcome that news as it means that, if the Resolution is passed and the rules are changed, the 66%+ of the vote will be enough to remove someone that the membership has lost confidence in.

 

We will still need members to vote on the Resolution itself (in order to see the rules changed) and this will go to an online/postal vote post-AGM.

I fear this will start a never-ending cycle of retaliatory votes to remove board members unless a quorum is established for these votes (ie, minimum % of membership voting). 

[StanSP]

35 minutes ago, RYM 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.

 

Don't think it does breach GDPR. 

 

There's no personal information being given out. 

[foxinsocks]

14 minutes ago, The_77 said:

I fear this will start a never-ending cycle of retaliatory votes to remove board members unless a quorum is established for these votes (ie, minimum % of membership voting). 

This new rule would enable members to propose a  motion to terminate a director's position.  The motion would have to be voted on at  a special general meeting or at an agm - both these meetings have rules about being quorate.  The new rule also requires > 2/3 of the votes to be in favour of the termination.  The text for the new rule was from the FSA and so we did not want to tamper with it  as any rule change requires their approval.   

[The_77]

Just now, foxinsocks said:

This new rule would enable members to propose a  motion to terminate a director's position.  The motion would have to be voted on at  a special general meeting or at an agm - both these meetings have rules about being quorate.  The new rule also requires > 2/3 of the votes to be in favour of the termination.  The text for the new rule was from the FSA and so we did not want to tamper with it  as any rule change requires their approval.   

Ah, gotcha! This makes sense— thank you for explaining!

[foxinsocks]

11 minutes ago, The_77 said:

Ah, gotcha! This makes sense— thank you for explaining!

We want the trust to gain a much larger membership - so that the club cannot ignore it - yet we know that many are cynical about  the relationship between the club and the trust and also the trust's previous focus on only its members rather than  the whole fan base.  This must change and be seen to change.   

We saw this rule change as a clear demonstration that the board are there to serve the members ... and  the board are to be accountable to the members - who would have a right to recall where confidence was lost.  By making this change we are seeking to demonstrate that by joining the trust the members really do have the say in who is running the trust and how. 
The new FAB has been designed to be tightly controlled by the club - so now,  more than ever,  we need a strong campaigning foxes trust.  I hope that many more of you will join us in reforming the foxes trust.

Edited 7 January by foxinsocks

[Foxes Trust Reform]

Worth mentioning, if you are a new Foxes Trust member (that has joined in recent months) please email [email protected] if you are interested in hearing about our campaign to reform the Foxes Trust.

 

If you plan to nominate a proxy for the vote on the upcoming Resolution (because you can't attend the AGM on Monday 13th January in-person or online), please continue to use the template we have provided (to those who have reached out to us) exactly as-is. It covers all eventualities.

[ramboacdc]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

I think you’ll need a tally of people like me who have sent emails to Digby because we want our votes done by proxy. I find the tone of his confirmation troubling. Predictable, but troubling. 

It feels so much like you are dealing with kids who have a made a den and don't want to have anyone else play with them. "We are playing board members today and you can't sit with us."

 

God forbid the people running the trust and comms are professional. That genius response from Digby, the Foxes Trust emails not going to a load of people and the link in there signature to the website being wrong, and I got an invite the Teams for the AGM from a sender named "Auntie Sarah." I'm nit picking, but a bit more professionalism wouldn't go amiss. Someone said it last year that they didn't like that all the pages on the website of the board members were them posing with trophy's and not much of any other substance, and I still agree with this 100%. It's a game of make believe and play time masquerading as a fan trust. 

[Daggers]

4 hours ago, ramboacdc said:

It feels so much like you are dealing with kids who have a made a den and don't want to have anyone else play with them. "We are playing board members today and you can't sit with us."

 

God forbid the people running the trust and comms are professional. That genius response from Digby, the Foxes Trust emails not going to a load of people and the link in there signature to the website being wrong, and I got an invite the Teams for the AGM from a sender named "Auntie Sarah." I'm nit picking, but a bit more professionalism wouldn't go amiss. Someone said it last year that they didn't like that all the pages on the website of the board members were them posing with trophy's and not much of any other substance, and I still agree with this 100%. It's a game of make believe and play time masquerading as a fan trust. 

 Trusts are important and should be bigger than personal vanity projects. These people actually believe they’ve been doing good.

[sylofox]

Jobs for the boys. I don't trust this lot as they don't work for true fans.

[UniFox21]

3 hours ago, sylofox said:

Jobs for the boys. I don't trust this lot as they don't work for true fans.

The fan base is large enough that it's always going to be difficult to fully identify what "true fans" opinion is.

Also important to note FT is an echo chamber for opinions, we're generally pretty one side or the other, and many other fans probably differ in opinions.

 

But I do agree they aren't doing the role as well as they could currently 

[foxinsocks]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

The fan base is large enough that it's always going to be difficult to fully identify what "true fans" opinion is.

Also important to note FT is an echo chamber for opinions, we're generally pretty one side or the other, and many other fans probably differ in opinions.

 

But I do agree they aren't doing the role as well as they could currently 

As part of the reform agenda we recognise that the Trust must represent all fans (though some groups may have conflicting ideas).   At last year's agm it became clear that the trust was simply focussing on the views of members.  Yet now,  both the reformers and the Trust agree that the trust must reach out to all fans.  I am personally keen to see survey work and focus work to establish the breadth of views and priorities.  A survey to reach all fans is a challenge that must be taken up.  I spoke with the NUFC trust about this challenge -  they monitor socials, invite response online on emerging issues, use snap polls all to be fed into their "issues agenda" - so that the trust can adopt a position and contact the club for response/action - and continue to push the club so that the can say "we have written N times in the last M months and the club have failed to act/respond etc".  This try of effort is essential for public campaigning and holding the club to account.

It is essential that the trust monitors and captures emerging fan issues and priorities - that's their job.  So this is an area that requires significant attention.

Edited 8 January by foxinsocks

[Globalfox]

9 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

As part of the reform agenda we recognise that the Trust must represent all fans (though some groups may have conflicting idea).   At last year's agm it became clear that the trust was simply focussing on the views of members.  Yet now,  both the reformers and the Trust agree that the trust must reach out to all fans.  I am personally keen to see survey work and focus work to establish the breadth of views and priorities.  A survey to reach all fans is a challenge that must be taken up.  I spoke with the NUFC trust about this challenge -  they monitor socials, invite response online on emerging issues, use snap polls all to be fed into their "issues agenda" - so that the trust can adopt a position and contact the club for response/action - and continue to push the club so that the can say "we have written N times in the last M months and the club have failed to act/respond etc".  This try of effort is essential for public campaigning and holding the club to account.

It is essential that the rust monitors and captures emerging fan issues and priorities - that's their job.  So this is an area that requires significant attention.

Totally agree you need an engaged body even if we do not agree on everything. I see nothing from the Trust despite being a member. I see more from other trusts. The FSA is also not great I am a member there and see little activity. Small club trusts are far more engaged with their members.

[RYM]

14 hours ago, StanSP said:

Don't think it does breach GDPR. 

 

There's no personal information being given out. 

For sure, either way when you are in a position of trust the content of other members emails should not be being discussed with other members. Very unprofessional and possibly insecure from our Alan.

 

 

 

[StanSP]

10 minutes ago, RYM said:

For sure, either way when you are in a position of trust the content of other members emails should not be being discussed with other members. Very unprofessional and possibly insecure from our Alan.

 

 

 

Insecure yes. And it's a weird thing to bring up. 

But in no way does it disclose who the members are that have sent him emails. 

I do get it, though. It's not a good look and it serves him no purpose to bring it up. 

[egg_fried_rice]

I got the same response from Alan.

 

How "interesting" he finds receiving numerous similarly worded emails is utterly irrelevant. I asked him to say more about what he finds interesting about it - I haven't heard back.

It's my first real dealing with the trust board since signing up on the back of the reform campaign. I was honestly a little surprised at the comment. I was at least prepared to accept that those currently on the board were at least trying to do things in a way that they thought best - and that any reform was more about a difference of opinion on how things should be done. This sort of reply gives me cause to reconsider that.

Edited 8 January by egg_fried_rice

[Mickyblueeyes]

When you receive multiple emails with similar wording, it suggests that there is a campaign/concern which has caused people to combine thoughts to engage change. As a Trust set up to protect the entity to which these emails relate, the concern should not be if people are using an email template, it should be that there is a need to and what those concerns are. 

 

The fact that the Trust Company Secretary is not able to gauge this is far more interesting (or rather concerning). 

[StanSP]

6 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

When you receive multiple emails with similar wording, it suggests that there is a campaign/concern which has caused people to combine thoughts to engage change. As a Trust set up to protect the entity to which these emails relate, the concern should not be if people are using an email template, it should be that there is a need to and what those concerns are. 

 

The fact that the Trust Company Secretary is not able to gauge this is far more interesting (or rather concerning). 

But in no way surprising... 

[Daggers]

[Wymsey]

Take it that the Foxes Trust is reluctant to change?

Edited 8 January by Wymsey

[Foxes_Trust]

2 hours ago, Globalfox said:

Totally agree you need an engaged body even if we do not agree on everything. I see nothing from the Trust despite being a member. I see more from other trusts. The FSA is also not great I am a member there and see little activity. Small club trusts are far more engaged with their members.

You should have received emails on Nov 13th & Dec 17th about the AGM & elections.

 

If you haven't received these, please e-mail [email protected] so we can check your database record, as further communication about the AGM will be sent later this week

 

The same request applies to any other member if they did not receive the above e-mails

[brucey]

1 hour ago, egg_fried_rice said:

I got the same response from Alan.

 

How "interesting" he finds receiving numerous similarly worded emails is utterly irrelevant. I asked him to say more about what he finds interesting about it - I haven't heard back.

I suspect he's in denial of the fact that there are genuinely hundreds of new members wanting reform (and wanting him out). 

 

He probably thinks the identical wording means that it is one person paying for hundreds of fake accounts to proxy vote against him en masse.