Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Foxes Trust Reform

Foxes Trust Reform - the final step

By Foxes Trust Reform, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Jackubu

Jackubu

Posted
Posted
On 16/01/2026 at 22:18, ramboacdc said:

Maybe now the election has concluded, the gloves may come off on both sides.

"I have received a number of complaints from Foxes Trust members - all making similar points around an interview with Ian Bason on the 'Blue Tinted Glasses' podcast.

 

The complaints are stating that Mr. Bason has broken rules 6.1 & 6.6 of the election policy:-

 6.1. Campaigning under the auspices of the Society will be restricted to the statements submitted by the candidates and to any hustings organised by the Society.  

 6.6. During the election neither the IEM, EMG nor the Society Board may provide advice to voting members as to the suitability of any candidate nor issue any voting advice to members collectively. Individual Society Board members who indicate a preference in public must make it clear that they do not speak on behalf of the Society Board and express a purely personal opinion. 

and that he has used this podcast to criticise other candidates / groups and give himself a clear advantage for his own position over other candidates.  

 

The Election Management Group (Jim Wheeler - Independent Chair, Alan Digby - Foxes Trust secretary, and Colin Phillips - Foxes Trust sub group member & Reform Group member) has reviewed the podcast and the complaints raised (and the opposing views). The EMG has agreed as follows:-

 

Mr. Bason was invited on to the independent podcast to be interviewed (he did not initiate this as has been alleged). On the podcast, he was introduced as a member of Foxes Trust, and then introduced himself as a supporter firstly and then gave a brief history of Foxes Trust and his own roles. He has been a long established member of the Trust Board and former chair, so will naturally be associated with the Foxes Trust by most listeners. We do not believe he initiated the discussion on the election or the 'Reform Group', he was answering questions from the hosts and did not state that he was representing the Trust Board in his responses. The fact that this discussion took place more than half way through an interview of over 1 hour would indicate that this was not the primary motivation or intent behind the interview - and many listeners / viewers would not have got this far through the podcast if the intention was solely to gain a specific advantage in the election. 

 

When discussing the Reform Group intentions, Mr. Bason clearly stated it was HIS view, (as opposed to the view of the FT Board). He also clearly stated he believes having the Reform Group on the Board is a positive and the positive aspects of their involvement. At no point did Mr. Bason name any other candidate, or in fact even specifically indicate that he was a candidate. We are aware that other podcasts have been issued with the 'Reform Group' stating opposing opinions. It would therefore be unfair if Mr. Bason (or any other existing Board member) were unable to give personal opinions because of their existing position / role.  

 

So we do not believe that Mr. Bason was campaigning under the auspices of the society, and that therefore the Board were not giving voting advice to members. 

 

We have consulted with the Football Supporters Association on matters of policy before giving this response to ensure we have understood and are following the rules correctly.

 

The objections have therefore been rejected, and as rule 7.1 - this decision of  the EMG is final."

 

 

This was the decision from the election committee. Jim is an independent person from Derby's trust who is overseeing the election. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
ramboacdc

ramboacdc

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Jackubu said:

"I have received a number of complaints from Foxes Trust members - all making similar points around an interview with Ian Bason on the 'Blue Tinted Glasses' podcast.

 

The complaints are stating that Mr. Bason has broken rules 6.1 & 6.6 of the election policy:-

 6.1. Campaigning under the auspices of the Society will be restricted to the statements submitted by the candidates and to any hustings organised by the Society.  

 6.6. During the election neither the IEM, EMG nor the Society Board may provide advice to voting members as to the suitability of any candidate nor issue any voting advice to members collectively. Individual Society Board members who indicate a preference in public must make it clear that they do not speak on behalf of the Society Board and express a purely personal opinion. 

and that he has used this podcast to criticise other candidates / groups and give himself a clear advantage for his own position over other candidates.  

 

The Election Management Group (Jim Wheeler - Independent Chair, Alan Digby - Foxes Trust secretary, and Colin Phillips - Foxes Trust sub group member & Reform Group member) has reviewed the podcast and the complaints raised (and the opposing views). The EMG has agreed as follows:-

 

Mr. Bason was invited on to the independent podcast to be interviewed (he did not initiate this as has been alleged). On the podcast, he was introduced as a member of Foxes Trust, and then introduced himself as a supporter firstly and then gave a brief history of Foxes Trust and his own roles. He has been a long established member of the Trust Board and former chair, so will naturally be associated with the Foxes Trust by most listeners. We do not believe he initiated the discussion on the election or the 'Reform Group', he was answering questions from the hosts and did not state that he was representing the Trust Board in his responses. The fact that this discussion took place more than half way through an interview of over 1 hour would indicate that this was not the primary motivation or intent behind the interview - and many listeners / viewers would not have got this far through the podcast if the intention was solely to gain a specific advantage in the election. 

 

When discussing the Reform Group intentions, Mr. Bason clearly stated it was HIS view, (as opposed to the view of the FT Board). He also clearly stated he believes having the Reform Group on the Board is a positive and the positive aspects of their involvement. At no point did Mr. Bason name any other candidate, or in fact even specifically indicate that he was a candidate. We are aware that other podcasts have been issued with the 'Reform Group' stating opposing opinions. It would therefore be unfair if Mr. Bason (or any other existing Board member) were unable to give personal opinions because of their existing position / role.  

 

So we do not believe that Mr. Bason was campaigning under the auspices of the society, and that therefore the Board were not giving voting advice to members. 

 

We have consulted with the Football Supporters Association on matters of policy before giving this response to ensure we have understood and are following the rules correctly.

 

The objections have therefore been rejected, and as rule 7.1 - this decision of  the EMG is final."

 

 

This was the decision from the election committee. Jim is an independent person from Derby's trust who is overseeing the election. 

Isn't that the one from before?  The email they other day seems to reference yours and they seem to be taking it further?

 

"Our intention is to continue to pursue the disqualification of Ian Bason due to his campaigning on the Blue Tinted Glasses show (contrary to Election Policy rules). We have been in touch with the Co-Chairs of the Trust and the Football Supporters Association (FSA). The ruling that he did not break rules failed to provide concrete justification/evidence as to why not and included largely irrelevant justifications for the ruling. We were also led to believe that the FSA had provided an opinion on the specific case but have since verified they did not."

  • Like 1
  • Popular Post
Foxes Trust Reform

Foxes Trust Reform

Posted
  • Author
  • Popular Post
Posted

The email shared above by @Jackubu is the one that was sent to all those who registered a complaint confirming the decision of the Election Management Group (which as the email states is comprised of Jim Wheeler from the Rams Trust, Alan Digby and Colin Phillips).

 

As you can see, the email states that they "consulted with the Football Supporters Association on matters of policy before giving this decision" and in other correspondence Jim has said "the Election Management Group made their decision after consultation with the FSA".

 

Our case against Ian Bason for campaigning set out a number of points at which we believe he campaigned against Foxes Trust Reform candidates - with direct quotes and time stamps - and that at no point did he express he was giving his personal opinion (which according to the Election Policy he must do). This is why we believe he broke at least one, but most likely two, election rules.

 

In response to the feedback from Jim, we asked for two things to help understand the decision:

 

1) A timestamp on the video where we could verify Ian Bason stating that he was giving his personal opinion

2) The guidance provided by the FSA so that we could see how they had interpreted the case

 

We were not provided with either bits of evidence requested and so we contacted the FSA direct to ask what the guidance provided was seeing as it wasn't forthcoming from either Jim/the EMG. The FSA responded to confirm that they had not given a perspective on the specific case, they had simply given the Trust guidance on how to apply their own Election Rules. At best, the inference that the FSA had been involved when responding to the case against Ian Bason was clumsy. At worst, it was an attempt to give credibility to the decision by implying the FSA had reviewed and given their perspective.

 

Having not had any further clarification from Jim/the EMG, and being told that any further questions needed to go to the FSA (as we had already done), we escalated our complaint to the Trust Co-Chairs as we believe the handling of this case risks huge reputational damage to the Trust and harms the credibility of the election. 

 

In that email, we countered the specific points given in the adjudication from the EMG (Jim, Alan and Colin):

  • "Mr. Bason was invited on to the independent podcast to be interviewed (he did not initiate this as has been alleged)" - irrelevant: it doesn't matter how he came to appear, just that he broke the rules when he did
  • "He was introduced as a member of Foxes Trust, and then introduced himself as a supporter firstly and then gave a brief history of Foxes Trust and his own roles. He has been a long established member of the Trust Board and former chair, so will naturally be associated with the Foxes Trust by most listeners" - irrelevant: it doesn't matter whether he shared his history of being a supporter or not, he was positioned as a Trust representative and spoke about matters in detail that he could only comment on as a Trust board member (and as the FAB rep). Most importantly, at no point did he state he was not there to represent the Foxes Trust.
  • "We do not believe he initiated the discussion on the election or the 'Reform Group', he was answering questions from the hosts and did not state that he was representing the Trust Board in his responses" - irrelevant: who initiated the discussion is not a factor here, he should have declined to answer or have been explicit in saying the views were his own. As a candidate, the onus is on him to know the rules and say he is not representing the Trust Board (which if he does not is quite fair to assume when he is appearing on a podcast and talking extensively about Trust matters)
  • "The fact that this discussion took place more than half way through an interview of over 1 hour would indicate that this was not the primary motivation or intent behind the interview - and many listeners / viewers would not have got this far through the podcast if the intention was solely to gain a specific advantage in the election" - irrelevant: the interview is available publicly and people can watch as much or as little as they choose. His intentions are not measured by at which point in the podcast he contravened the rules
  • "When discussing the Reform Group intentions, Mr. Bason clearly stated it was HIS view, (as opposed to the view of the FT Board)" - we have asked for a time stamp of this but are yet to be provided with it, can you provide one?
  •  "He also clearly stated he believes having the Reform Group on the Board is a positive and the positive aspects of their involvement" - he does but he also cautions against more of them, he should not be cautioning against fellow candidates (which is where is campaigning against standing for election)
  •  "At no point did Mr. Bason name any other candidate, or in fact even specifically indicate that he was a candidate" - irrelevant: names were not publicly available at this point, but the election period was underway
  • "We are aware that other podcasts have been issued with the 'Reform Group' stating opposing opinions. It would therefore be unfair if Mr. Bason (or any other existing Board member) were unable to give personal opinions because of their existing position/role" - irrelevant: no other candidates have appeared on any podcasts during the election period and campaigned against fellow candidates. If they have, they should be disqualified.

As you can see, many of the points above are completely irrelevant and the judgement here is not being made purely and objectively against rules 6.1 and 6.6.

 

We will keep pursuing this case. Ian Bason used that appearance, and his position within the Trust, during the election period, to warn against a vote for Chris, Jack, Andrew and Steve (as Foxes Trust Reform supported candidates). He must be disqualified.

 

If the Trust are reviewing this objectively they must be able to evidence that a rule break has not occurred and be satisfied that if a candidate were to warn others against voting for fellow candidates again in an election period it would be ok. If they can't, they must put aside personal relationships with Ian Bason and disqualify him.

  • Like 5
Paninistickers

Paninistickers

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Foxes Trust Reform said:

The email shared above by @Jackubu is the one that was sent to all those who registered a complaint confirming the decision of the Election Management Group (which as the email states is comprised of Jim Wheeler from the Rams Trust, Alan Digby and Colin Phillips).

 

As you can see, the email states that they "consulted with the Football Supporters Association on matters of policy before giving this decision" and in other correspondence Jim has said "the Election Management Group made their decision after consultation with the FSA".

 

Our case against Ian Bason for campaigning set out a number of points at which we believe he campaigned against Foxes Trust Reform candidates - with direct quotes and time stamps - and that at no point did he express he was giving his personal opinion (which according to the Election Policy he must do). This is why we believe he broke at least one, but most likely two, election rules.

 

In response to the feedback from Jim, we asked for two things to help understand the decision:

 

1) A timestamp on the video where we could verify Ian Bason stating that he was giving his personal opinion

2) The guidance provided by the FSA so that we could see how they had interpreted the case

 

We were not provided with either bits of evidence requested and so we contacted the FSA direct to ask what the guidance provided was seeing as it wasn't forthcoming from either Jim/the EMG. The FSA responded to confirm that they had not given a perspective on the specific case, they had simply given the Trust guidance on how to apply their own Election Rules. At best, the inference that the FSA had been involved when responding to the case against Ian Bason was clumsy. At worst, it was an attempt to give credibility to the decision by implying the FSA had reviewed and given their perspective.

 

Having not had any further clarification from Jim/the EMG, and being told that any further questions needed to go to the FSA (as we had already done), we escalated our complaint to the Trust Co-Chairs as we believe the handling of this case risks huge reputational damage to the Trust and harms the credibility of the election. 

 

In that email, we countered the specific points given in the adjudication from the EMG (Jim, Alan and Colin):

  • "Mr. Bason was invited on to the independent podcast to be interviewed (he did not initiate this as has been alleged)" - irrelevant: it doesn't matter how he came to appear, just that he broke the rules when he did
  • "He was introduced as a member of Foxes Trust, and then introduced himself as a supporter firstly and then gave a brief history of Foxes Trust and his own roles. He has been a long established member of the Trust Board and former chair, so will naturally be associated with the Foxes Trust by most listeners" - irrelevant: it doesn't matter whether he shared his history of being a supporter or not, he was positioned as a Trust representative and spoke about matters in detail that he could only comment on as a Trust board member (and as the FAB rep). Most importantly, at no point did he state he was not there to represent the Foxes Trust.
  • "We do not believe he initiated the discussion on the election or the 'Reform Group', he was answering questions from the hosts and did not state that he was representing the Trust Board in his responses" - irrelevant: who initiated the discussion is not a factor here, he should have declined to answer or have been explicit in saying the views were his own. As a candidate, the onus is on him to know the rules and say he is not representing the Trust Board (which if he does not is quite fair to assume when he is appearing on a podcast and talking extensively about Trust matters)
  • "The fact that this discussion took place more than half way through an interview of over 1 hour would indicate that this was not the primary motivation or intent behind the interview - and many listeners / viewers would not have got this far through the podcast if the intention was solely to gain a specific advantage in the election" - irrelevant: the interview is available publicly and people can watch as much or as little as they choose. His intentions are not measured by at which point in the podcast he contravened the rules
  • "When discussing the Reform Group intentions, Mr. Bason clearly stated it was HIS view, (as opposed to the view of the FT Board)" - we have asked for a time stamp of this but are yet to be provided with it, can you provide one?
  •  "He also clearly stated he believes having the Reform Group on the Board is a positive and the positive aspects of their involvement" - he does but he also cautions against more of them, he should not be cautioning against fellow candidates (which is where is campaigning against standing for election)
  •  "At no point did Mr. Bason name any other candidate, or in fact even specifically indicate that he was a candidate" - irrelevant: names were not publicly available at this point, but the election period was underway
  • "We are aware that other podcasts have been issued with the 'Reform Group' stating opposing opinions. It would therefore be unfair if Mr. Bason (or any other existing Board member) were unable to give personal opinions because of their existing position/role" - irrelevant: no other candidates have appeared on any podcasts during the election period and campaigned against fellow candidates. If they have, they should be disqualified.

As you can see, many of the points above are completely irrelevant and the judgement here is not being made purely and objectively against rules 6.1 and 6.6.

 

We will keep pursuing this case. Ian Bason used that appearance, and his position within the Trust, during the election period, to warn against a vote for Chris, Jack, Andrew and Steve (as Foxes Trust Reform supported candidates). He must be disqualified.

 

If the Trust are reviewing this objectively they must be able to evidence that a rule break has not occurred and be satisfied that if a candidate were to warn others against voting for fellow candidates again in an election period it would be ok. If they can't, they must put aside personal relationships with Ian Bason and disqualify him.

Great post. Well put points. 

 

The real unspoken, unprovable point is the Ian Bason IS the trust. Him and maybe a small group of 30 or 40 have run the Trust as a de facto (and well meaning) supporters' social club for 25 years. It's been an irrelevant clique for the vast majority that time. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
foxinsocks

foxinsocks

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Great post. Well put points. 

 

The real unspoken, unprovable point is the Ian Bason IS the trust. Him and maybe a small group of 30 or 40 have run the Trust as a de facto (and well meaning) supporters' social club for 25 years. It's been an irrelevant clique for the vast majority that time. 

 

 

 

 

It was two years ago that we realised that the supporters trusts were becoming more important under the new government legislation.  Yet our trust was too cozy, too timid and too tired... they had got too close to the club.  Worse, the club was and is a mess and needed a trust to challenge the club and represent all foxes fans.

We went to an agm and descovered how out of touch the old guard at the trust were.... we realised reform was crucial.

Edited by foxinsocks
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Popular Post
Foxes Trust Reform

Foxes Trust Reform

Posted
  • Author
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

Great post. Well put points. 

 

The real unspoken, unprovable point is the Ian Bason IS the trust. Him and maybe a small group of 30 or 40 have run the Trust as a de facto (and well meaning) supporters' social club for 25 years. It's been an irrelevant clique for the vast majority that time. 

 

This is true. But it's also not really something that needs proving in this case.

 

The rules state that if a board member provides any opinion on candidate suitability they must express that this is their personal opinion: Ian Bason did not.

 

The rules state that campaigning under the auspices of the Trust is not permissible: the interview was promoted as "Ian Bason from the Foxes Trust" and Ian Bason spoke at length as a representative of the Trust (providing insights and updates that only a Foxes Trust board member could give) and he then went on, as a candidate himself, to comment on the suitability of other candidates he was up against for re-election.

 

Did any of the other candidates have the opportunity to go on a podcast as a representative of the Trust, speak about their role in the work the Trust is doing and warn against other candidates getting elected? All whilst at no point stating this was their personal opinion as the rules clearly state one must?

 

Of course they did not. They have been disadvantaged due to Ian Bason's campaigning and if he is re-elected it casts a stain on the Foxes Trust and the integrity of this election process.

  • Like 5
GLC

GLC

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Foxes Trust Reform said:

This is true. But it's also not really something that needs proving in this case.

 

The rules state that if a board member provides any opinion on candidate suitability they must express that this is their personal opinion: Ian Bason did not.

 

The rules state that campaigning under the auspices of the Trust is not permissible: the interview was promoted as "Ian Bason from the Foxes Trust" and Ian Bason spoke at length as a representative of the Trust (providing insights and updates that only a Foxes Trust board member could give) and he then went on, as a candidate himself, to comment on the suitability of other candidates he was up against for re-election.

 

Did any of the other candidates have the opportunity to go on a podcast as a representative of the Trust, speak about their role in the work the Trust is doing and warn against other candidates getting elected? All whilst at no point stating this was their personal opinion as the rules clearly state one must?

 

Of course they did not. They have been disadvantaged due to Ian Bason's campaigning and if he is re-elected it casts a stain on the Foxes Trust and the integrity of this election process.

Full transparency, I was offered the opportunity to go on BTGs call in show on a Monday night, to talk about why I’m running for the foxes trust.

 

Unfortunately, the timings never aligned for me to be able to do this.

 

I did mention on a couple of other channels that I was running for the foxes trust, and I gave my own opinion on the Trust and what I would bring to the trust, without mentioning other candidates.

  • Like 4
Loxm98

Loxm98

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, GLC said:

Full transparency, I was offered the opportunity to go on BTGs call in show on a Monday night, to talk about why I’m running for the foxes trust.

 

Unfortunately, the timings never aligned for me to be able to do this.

 

I did mention on a couple of other channels that I was running for the foxes trust, and I gave my own opinion on the Trust and what I would bring to the trust, without mentioning other candidates.

Thanks Steve. Yes in the days following the interview with Ian, I also invited on Steve and Chris who are both running for election under FTR, I know there was also a reluctance to do it during the election period in case it broken any rules.. Hopefully now the election period is over we can hear more from all candidates regardless of the result!

  • Like 1
  • Popular Post
Foxes Trust Reform

Foxes Trust Reform

Posted
  • Author
  • Popular Post
Posted
7 hours ago, GLC said:

Full transparency, I was offered the opportunity to go on BTGs call in show on a Monday night, to talk about why I’m running for the foxes trust.

 

Unfortunately, the timings never aligned for me to be able to do this.

 

I did mention on a couple of other channels that I was running for the foxes trust, and I gave my own opinion on the Trust and what I would bring to the trust, without mentioning other candidates.

And this would have been fine.

 

You are allowed to state your own case as to why you should be re-elected and you are not a current Trust board member (who are held to a certain standard during the election period as a result of being a board member).

 

What you're not allowed to do is appear on a fan channel/podcast under the auspices of the Trust, provide voting advice guidance/advice by warning against your fellow candidates and at no point state that this is just your personal opinion.

 

Ian Bason knew the rules. Ian Bason broke the rules. Ian Bason gained an advantage in the election.

 

Doesn't it speak volumes that other candidates turned down opportunities to appear on shows in order to ensure they didn't break any rules yet Ian Bason, a current board member, did not?

  • Like 6
ramboacdc

ramboacdc

Posted
Posted

AGM is tonight. I got the Zoom link in my emails but some folks don't seem to have recieved it. 

Not 100% sure if I can post it publically, so if you are joining but don't have it yet, DM me and I will send it over. 

  • Like 1
CockneyFox

CockneyFox

Posted
Posted

Fingers crossed for the Reform candidates later on.

 

Cifuentes yesterday and Bason tonight would represent a satisfactory couple of days for notable departures completely out of their depth… 🙏

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...