Early AGM: Your Chance To Change The Foxes Trust

[CosbehFox]

 

42 minutes ago, Raj said:

Foxes Trust Board – Foxes Trust

 

Great representation of the demographic of our City!

 

No tick box or diversity or tattooed hardcore in this group!!

 

Thing is Raj, regardless of my position within Reform or now on the board, that board can change if people want it to change. Anyone once a member can put themselves forward - the board is as it is now because of apathy. That's the sad part of it. 

 

We have a fanbase is generally apathetic and when they do get involved, they often give up when it doesn't work out.

 

That's why Union FS deserve major, major credit but its worth remembering its taken them 10 years of really, really hard work. There's people at the centre of it who give up so much time and faced some many barriers. Pure hard work.

 

 

8 minutes ago, davieG said:

Six votes were discounted either as duplicated attempts, impersonation of another member, or failure to supply sufficient identifying information on the form e.g. no surname and no membership number. We determined that discounting these votes made no significant statistical alteration to the result. Meaning 233 valid votes were cast.

 

https://foxestrust.co.uk/11529/agm-resolution-ballot-result

My understanding was that it was an either/or. If you had your surname, they could trace it back. If they had membership number, they could do the same. If they didn't have both, then that was difficult to do. 

 

Either way, the disappointing thing have spent nearly a year fighting within the reform campaign is we still needed c100 votes to make the advised change happen. Maybe we didn't present our case well enough, maybe we couldn't get past a social media echo chamber, I don't know. But we move onto the next phase of it all. 

 

 

[Raj]

2 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

 

Thing is Raj, regardless of my position within Reform or now on the board, that board can change if people want it to change. Anyone once a member can put themselves forward - the board is as it is now because of apathy. That's the sad part of it. 

 

We have a fanbase is generally apathetic and when they do get involved, they often give up when it doesn't work out.

 

That's why Union FS deserve major, major credit but its worth remembering its taken them 10 years of really, really hard work. There's people at the centre of it who give up so much time and faced some many barriers. Pure hard work.

 

 

Im a massive advocate for Union FS and its members and good luck to them

 

Again, anyone who can try and infiltrate this inner circle of foxestrust and actually get the respect of KP/LCFC have my backing and praise.

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

10 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

We have a fanbase is generally apathetic and when they do get involved, they often give up when it doesn't work out.

This is unfortunately very true. If people on this board genuinely cared about challenging the Trust, or getting better fan representation in front of the club, a new group would have been formed long ago. But I don't think they do, it's just easier to moan on here. 

 

Bashing the Trust is underlying lore of the forum, alongside wanting to swap the kop with the family stand, the Nicky Maynard thread etc. Yet nothing from FT comes to fruition in terms of tangible action. 

Edited 30 January 2025 by Sol thewall Bamba

[davieG]

7 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

 

Thing is Raj, regardless of my position within Reform or now on the board, that board can change if people want it to change. Anyone once a member can put themselves forward - the board is as it is now because of apathy. That's the sad part of it. 

 

We have a fanbase is generally apathetic and when they do get involved, they often give up when it doesn't work out.

 

That's why Union FS deserve major, major credit but its worth remembering its taken them 10 years of really, really hard work. There's people at the centre of it who give up so much time and faced some many barriers. Pure hard work.

 

 

My understanding was that it was an either/or. If you had your surname, they could trace it back. If they had membership number, they could do the same. If they didn't have both, then that was difficult to do. 

 

Either way, the disappointing thing have spent nearly a year fighting within the reform campaign is we still needed c100 votes to make the advised change happen. Maybe we didn't present our case well enough, maybe we couldn't get past a social media echo chamber, I don't know. But we move onto the next phase of it all. 

 

 

I wonder if the subject matter wasn't of sufficient interest or understanding to break the apathy. It maybe needed something that directly affected fans  hard to find something I know that relates to how the trust is run.

[Trekerz]

44 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

This is unfortunately very true. If people on this board genuinely cared about challenging the Trust, or getting better fan representation in front of the club, a new group would have been formed long ago. But I don't think they do, it's just easier to moan on here. 

 

Bashing the Trust is underlying lore of the forum, alongside wanting to swap the kop with the family stand, the Nicky Maynard thread etc. Yet nothing from FT comes to fruition in terms of tangible action. 

#

Edited 30 January 2025 by Trekerz

[LinekersLugs]

On 30/01/2025 at 09:19, davieG said:

I'm sure the voting form said Membership number if known, I didn't know mine so left it blank then I read that those without Membership Nos were discarded. 

Wow is that true ?? 

[Foxes_Trust]

44 minutes ago, LinekersLugs said:

Wow is that true ?? 

No it isn’t true

 

If we had the membership number or the full name of the person voting they could be verified and the vote was counted 

 

However for example if the person just put “Steve” and we have 11 members on the database called Steve, there was no way we could verify who was voting, so the vote was discounted.

Edited 31 January 2025 by Foxes_Trust

[Staff]

4 hours ago, Foxes_Trust said:

No it isn’t true

 

If we had the membership number or the full name of the person voting they could be verified and the vote was counted 

 

However for example if the person just put “Steve” and we have 11 members on the database called Steve, there was no way we could verify who was voting, so the vote was discounted.

How many votes were discounted?

[grobyfox1990]

On 30/01/2025 at 08:37, Lako42 said:

This is the problem the new voices in the Trust have. 

 

It's why I think a new, more radical group could be better in terms of what they want to achieve. 

 

The club, although officially linked the Trust, give them zero respect. 

Post the link of your new group, I will join 

[Foxes_Trust]

5 hours ago, Staff said:

How many votes were discounted?

As stated in the article 6 in total, therefore this wasn’t significant to the overall result 

 

https://foxestrust.co.uk/11529/agm-resolution-ballot-result

 

For posters who haven’t clicked the link, please note….

 

Whilst the Board realises the result will be a disappointment to some Members, we hope the action we are taking illustrates a willingness to change and improve our governance procedures.

 

Given the number of members that voted in favour of the Resolution, the Board has decided to take action to amend the Society Policies to enable Members to hold those elected to the Board to be more accountable in between the three-year periods of office. This possible course of action was discussed at the AGM.

 

The Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) has been engaged to undertake a governance review of all of the Trusts Policies and procedures. At present, a Board Member can only be removed by a majority vote of the Board. The Board will draft and seek FSA approval for policy amendments that will provide Members with protocols and processes for holding Board Members to account, with the possibility of removal.

 

So the board has listened to members and will make changes which addresses the issues raised by the motion but not in a way that could be rejected by the FCA and is approved as best practice by the FSA

Edited 1 February 2025 by Foxes_Trust