Foxes Trust latest statement!

[Mickyblueeyes]

42 minutes ago, RYM said:

The battle you’ll have mate amongst many others is attracting people on the basis they’ll be listened to. They absolutely won’t be.
 

 

👏 

[foxinsocks]

10 minutes ago, davieG said:

Not when you have to renew every year for £10 people will not bother unless something dramatic happens and I don't mean relegation.

 

FT can only impact change if it has significant numbers. Money in the bank is irrelevant.

 

Make it a £1 to join for 5yrs/10yrs/lifetime . FT needs to have 5 / 10 / 15 thousands members not money in the bank.

 

Money can be raised as and when needed.

I am with you.  Frankly I would let people join for£1 for 25 years.

(If it can be zero that would be best... there is a kefal share par argument... but I am sure we coukd get around this).

We don't need miney we need members.

[davieG]

1 minute ago, foxinsocks said:

kefal share par

What is this, I'm assuming it's some sort of 'joint ownership' of the trust.

[foxinsocks]

17 minutes ago, RYM said:

I think your efforts are brilliant BTW, you know that. 

 

Another huge challenge is now Ian has let the club create the clubs perfect FAB unchallenged (and mariculously found his own place on it by not upsetting Anthony during the process) the FT, UFS etc have now lost any voice at all. Everything, as we saw from the pathetic trust statement on Friday goes back to the FAB "are now putting the pressure on". The Trust are even further behind now but it's the same BS.

 

This summer was a monumental f**k up by the club and by the trust. I would still suggest there are people in the trust who have absolutely abused their board positions, have completely ignored the trusts aims  all for self-gain, incompetence or just CBA.

 

The Trust board need holding to account for that, for letting the club engineer that kind of FAB, they too need an internal investigation and need to stop hiding behind "we are just volunteers"

 

Would love to hear from @Foxes_Trust on how all these "aims" have progressed over the last 24,18, 12 and 6 months. Should be an easy little project that.

 

Last summer I met with Ian and urged him to walk away if the ckub would not back off.  The ckub made things worse and the trust swallowed it.  That was a pivotal moment.  It was a big mistake.  That was a moment to stand up to the club.... I am not sure the FAB could have been created without the club support.

[foxinsocks]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

What is this, I'm assuming it's some sort of 'joint ownership' of the trust.

Sorry,   members have to aquire 1 share at par value... this is £1

It could be 1p... or the trust could allow folk not to pay it (they would owe the trust 1p).

The trust has 45k in the bank

[davieG]

Just now, foxinsocks said:

The trust has 45k in the bank

Mindboggling so £75ish per member. I bet that frightens the pants off the board.

 

FT - We we want to publish the minutes of the FAB meeting.

Club - N0

FT - Why not

Club - Because!

FT - You do know we have £45k in the bank

Club - 

[Globalfox]

The real question is are the Trust Leaders forgetting who they are responsible to and that is the membership not the Football Club. I feel aggrieved that two members of the Trust who have no more importance than me are provided insights that they then keep from me. In fact information is the property of the trust and all its members. This is the key point of why they should have said they cannot agree to the confidentiality clauses of the FAB. They never asked the Trust membership if the members agreed to be muted as an organization. I have spoken to solicitors because as a member I feel that this breaks the basis of a a community benefit society and that two leadership individuals are not acting in the best interests of the members of the community benefit society. Either share or withdraw from the FAB as a member I and many others were never asked if we approve of this secret society under the guise of representing the trust members.

[chapero82]

Absolutely no point in the foxes trust anymore! 
 

if you can’t divulge the QA’s content fans then you are not a supporters club 

[accessory]

As I recall, the Trust membership re-elected the leaders UNANIMOUSLY (or at least without any form of noticeable dissent) at the recent AGM.

 

Breaking off relations with the club would have served no purpose, given that Whelan and co would still have been happy to give briefings to lapdogs like Cliff Ginetta and others.

Edited 16 February by accessory

[RYM]

11 minutes ago, Globalfox said:

The real question is are the Trust Leaders forgetting who they are responsible to and that is the membership not the Football Club. I feel aggrieved that two members of the Trust who have no more importance than me are provided insights that they then keep from me. In fact information is the property of the trust and all its members. This is the key point of why they should have said they cannot agree to the confidentiality clauses of the FAB. They never asked the Trust membership if the members agreed to be muted as an organization. I have spoken to solicitors because as a member I feel that this breaks the basis of a a community benefit society and that two leadership individuals are not acting in the best interests of the members of the community benefit society. Either share or withdraw from the FAB as a member I and many others were never asked if we approve of this secret society under the guise of representing the trust members.

Exactly all of this 100%, but they live in fear and swear by “it’s better to have some conversation than none” to quote Steve, who I respect but disagree with on this point. The reality is, there is no conversation. Only listening to what the club want to say.
 

I’ve just emailed this to them as I’m also confused and concerned with everything that has happened 

[foxinsocks]

34 minutes ago, accessory said:

As I recall, the Trust membership re-elected the leaders UNANIMOUSLY (or at least without any form of noticeable dissent) at the recent AGM.

 

Breaking off relations with the club would have served no purpose, given that Whelan and co would still have been happy to give briefings to lapdogs like Cliff Ginetta and others.

Not quite right. There were four seats up for grabs.  One was Lynn wyeth's. The reform group chose to field three candidates so that we were not opposing lynne. There were no other candidates... frankly we expected one or two.  Thus the three reform candidates were confirmed along side lynn.  The reform group were happy so no need for dissent.

Next time we will field more candidates...

 

 

Edited 16 February by foxinsocks

[foxinsocks]

38 minutes ago, chapero82 said:

Absolutely no point in the foxes trust anymore! 
 

if you can’t divulge the QA’s content fans then you are not a supporters club 

In its current form you are right.  That's why we are asking for support to reform the trust

[Globalfox]

1 hour ago, accessory said:

As I recall, the Trust membership re-elected the leaders UNANIMOUSLY (or at least without any form of noticeable dissent) at the recent AGM.

 

Breaking off relations with the club would have served no purpose, given that Whelan and co would still have been happy to give briefings to lapdogs like Cliff Ginetta and others.

So two differing topics are being mixed here dialogue with the club is one thing and yes it’s critical for the trust. Opposite to that is the Trust Board claiming to represent views of members when there is little to no engagement plus receiving information that they will not share with the members they represent. You can engage with the club but make it clear that as representatives of the trust they cannot agree to an NDA. I doubt the terms of the NDA were ever negotiated. Also was any document signed that outlines the terms and topics of the NDA. It’s OK for an individual but the board in effect committed the Trust to restrictions without asking the membership. The Everton Trust took a different path and communicate with their members but the club at least according to recent reports ignores the. That’s choice we were never offered it.

[blabyboy]

Having read through all the pages, the key question for me is can the FAB structure, terms of engagement be changed? 

 

If they can't then whatever you do in FT is moot. I have other queries but the above is fundamental, if that's stuck in place or you need the other parties within to vote for a change then I think you'll be waiting for Godot.

 

[blabyboy]

Just been reading through the FAB plan pdf (why not just an html page??)

 

Found a Monitor section

 

We will regularly review the Fan Engagement Plan and assess the effectiveness of the Fan Advisory Board, with the help of feedback from the Fan Advisory Board and the wider fan community, making necessary adjustments to maximise its effectiveness.

 

I'll check the ToR, but has it been documented anywhere about how this assessment is made and on what period? How are they quantifying "effectiveness", there must be some tangible Key Performance Indicators to be able to make this statement. Anyone know what they are?

[RYM]

14 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

Just been reading through the FAB plan pdf (why not just an html page??)

 

Found a Monitor section

 

We will regularly review the Fan Engagement Plan and assess the effectiveness of the Fan Advisory Board, with the help of feedback from the Fan Advisory Board and the wider fan community, making necessary adjustments to maximise its effectiveness.

 

I'll check the ToR, but has it been documented anywhere about how this assessment is made and on what period? How are they quantifying "effectiveness", there must be some tangible Key Performance Indicators to be able to make this statement. Anyone know what they are?

Nah there is nothing tangible at all about any of it. They will count their own "pats on the backs" I guess and carry on. The club call all shots.

 

It's so flawed in every way. Even the recruitment to it required nothing apart from if the club liked you. I asked the Trust to ensure there was some sort of spec for the places available and for those applying to ensure it was all fair and relevant but Alan Digby and Ian shot this down / ignored these requests at least 4 times in group chats. 

Anything that required any accountability was obviously going to cause the Club et al issues as they wanted to hand pick the people to include a selection of favourites or those that least likely to cause any real challenges.

 

The club also worked with the Trust to get the FSA involved to "give some transparency to the process". While the FSA were involved the club didn't buy in until the FSA promised to use LCFC as an example of best practice to other clubs. It'll look good on Anthony and Imogens CV's etc.

 

Initially the FAB formation was looked at the season we went down but once relegated the Club didn't continue with it as it isn't an EFL requirement. The Trust did agree with me that this showed it wasn't a priority and I asked them to pull away from it until it was clear this wasn't just a vanity project for the club. They didn't.

 

Once we were back up to the EPL the Club hand was forced and they had to do something due to regulations, but then went on to continually fail to meet their own summer deadlines and promises to the Trust in delivering any outlines of their fan engagement strategy. During this time (ironically) Anthony and Susan said FE and FAB was a "priority" and the Trust just nodded along and let them off the hook. Again I asked them to step away from it all as I could see so many flaws in the "FE framework", @foxinsocks was the same I believe. They didn't.

 

In short (which I am terrible at I know), the FAB and the format approved is a Trust endorsed, club led vanity project with power handed to those at the club. As a result of its format @Foxes_Trust , @Union FS and the other groups now have even less say than before.

 

*parklife*

 

 

[blabyboy]

Ok, thanks for the summary.

 

So forget the Trust for a moment - it's clear from the FAB plan and the ToR that they're irrelevant at present. Am I correct in understanding that the FSA are actually the arbiter here?... i.e. you said that that LCFC are looking to be cited by the FSA as an example of best practice. This would suggest that the FSA are the ones to lobby and point to examples of malpractice or at least non-adherence. So would I be better off searching the FSA site for documentation on how FAB's must/should/could be formed, assessed and amended?

[foxinsocks]

11 minutes ago, RYM said:

Nah there is nothing tangible at all about any of it. They will count their own "pats on the backs" I guess and carry on. The club call all shots.

 

It's so flawed in every way. Even the recruitment to it required nothing apart from if the club liked you. I asked the Trust to ensure there was some sort of spec for the places available and for those applying to ensure it was all fair and relevant but Alan Digby and Ian shot this down / ignored these requests at least 4 times in group chats. 

Anything that required any accountability was obviously going to cause the Club et al issues as they wanted to hand pick the people to include a selection of favourites or those that least likely to cause any real challenges.

 

The club also worked with the Trust to get the FSA involved to "give some transparency to the process". While the FSA were involved the club didn't buy in until the FSA promised to use LCFC as an example of best practice to other clubs. It'll look good on Anthony and Imogens CV's etc.

 

Initially the FAB formation was looked at the season we went down but once relegated the Club didn't continue with it as it isn't an EFL requirement. The Trust did agree with me that this showed it wasn't a priority and I asked them to pull away from it until it was clear this wasn't just a vanity project for the club. They didn't.

 

Once we were back up to the EPL the Club hand was forced and they had to do something due to regulations, but then went on to continually fail to meet their own summer deadlines and promises to the Trust in delivering any outlines of their fan engagement strategy. During this time (ironically) Anthony and Susan said FE and FAB was a "priority" and the Trust just nodded along and let them off the hook. Again I asked them to step away from it all as I could see so many flaws in the "FE framework", @foxinsocks was the same I believe. They didn't.

 

In short (which I am terrible at I know), the FAB and the format approved is a Trust endorsed, club led vanity project with power handed to those at the club. As a result of its format @Foxes_Trust , @Union FS and the other groups now have even less say than before.

 

*parklife*

 

 

I did meet with Ian last summer and urged him to withdraw the support of the trust to the proposed FAB  (as this would also harm the fsa involvement) and i offered to go with him to the club to explain what was wrong. 

Primarily, the FAB is not a decision making group so the club had nothing to worry about.

Further while we can all see NDAs might apply to commercially or legally sensitive material... (esp with ongoing disputes).. why should it apply to footballing matters? Orthe clubs position on ticketing, banning orders etc

It got worse for the trust when at the last minute the club demanded more control.... yet the trust chose to swallow it

[foxinsocks]

3 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

Ok, thanks for the summary.

 

So forget the Trust for a moment - it's clear from the FAB plan and the ToR that they're irrelevant at present. Am I correct in understanding that the FSA are actually the arbiter here?... i.e. you said that that LCFC are looking to be cited by the FSA as an example of best practice. This would suggest that the FSA are the ones to lobby and point to examples of malpractice or at least non-adherence. So would I be better off searching the FSA site for documentation on how FAB's must/should/could be formed, assessed and amended?

The fsa got bounced into it to...

[RYM]

1 minute ago, blabyboy said:

Ok, thanks for the summary.

 

So forget the Trust for a moment - it's clear from the FAB plan and the ToR that they're irrelevant at present. Am I correct in understanding that the FSA are actually the arbiter here?... i.e. you said that that LCFC are looking to be cited by the FSA as an example of best practice. This would suggest that the FSA are the ones to lobby and point to examples of malpractice or at least non-adherence. So would I be better off searching the FSA site for documentation on how FAB's must/should/could be formed, assessed and amended?

Your best bet is to speak to [email protected] , she's a good egg and a football fan, however my understanding with this process was that they just sat through the recruitment side once the club had suggested it's strategy. Any FAB is down to how the club want to do it and fan groups etc can try and suggest other ways, but of course you need to be strong with that!! So now this has been decided, it's ultimately "pipe down and do as we want" from LCFC.

[foxinsocks]

1 minute ago, RYM said:

Your best bet is to speak to [email protected] , she's a good egg and a football fan, however my understanding with this process was that they just sat through the recruitment side once the club had suggested it's strategy. Any FAB is down to how the club want to do it and fan groups etc can try and suggest other ways, but of course you need to be strong with that!! So now this has been decided, it's ultimately "pipe down and do as we want" from LCFC.

I still believe the trust should withdraw from the Fab

[FoxFossil]

Sorry to be thick  and a bit new to this thread. Is the 'Trust' a registered Charity? If so then it is the Charity Commisioners job to confirm they are operating in accordance with their Mems and Articles of Association I.e. working to achieve their stated charitable objectives, which have to be measurable and evidenced.

Edited 16 February by FoxFossil

[blabyboy]

@foxinsocks @RYM

Ok thank you. So the FSA provided no legal, statutory framework, but acted more as a 'matk' of sorts that a process has been followed? i.e. you cannot point to a rulebook/guidance document and say X club did not follow Y rule at subsection Z? 

 

If so, the FSA is also a busted flush.

 

@FoxFossil

That is a good suggestion.

 

 

[RYM]

3 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

@foxinsocks @RYM

Ok thank you. So the FSA provided no legal, statutory framework, but acted more as a 'matk' of sorts that a process has been followed? i.e. you cannot point to a rulebook/guidance document and say X club did not follow Y rule at subsection Z? 

 

If so, the FSA is also a busted flush.

 

@FoxFossil

That is a good suggestion.

 

 

Yes mate, the FSA are good folk trying hard and have been for years. Often getting nowhere but they can be a good resource as a fan or when working at a club. They've helped me with both.

 

That said, when I was at clubs and you got an FSA email you either ignored it or just ticked the boxes to make them think you were listening and moved on ASAP. No real clout.

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, FoxFossil said:

Sorry to be thick  and a bit new to this thread. Is the 'Trust' a registered Charity? If so then it is the Charity Commisioners job to confirm they are operating in accordance with their Mems and Articles of Association I.e. working to achieve their stated charitable objectives, which have to be measurable and evidenced.

It’s not a charity. 
 

it’s a community society