Foxes Trust Reform - the final step

[Loxm]

31 minutes ago, ramboacdc said:

 

Wouldn't call it defending. With the best of intentions I think the show wanted both sides of the coin, with one side knowing what they can and cannot say, and allegedly sticking to those guidelines, and one has not. Not like they invited him on the show to use it as a soapbox to besmirch candidates. BTG have done nothing wrong in this situation for sure and wouldn't be fully versed on clause 6.1 and 6.6 mentioned by FTR, as I doubt anyone would. I don't spend my evenings or day job reading terms, conditions and rule sets for the board elections of a supporter group. 


Will see if anything comes from the email FTR has sent, and any other emails that have been sent about it to the election manager, but I don't think the hosts/channel etc are in any way to blame here and seem happy to say that they aren't on anyones "side". 

Thank you for some common sense! As i've already said, we have invited FTR on previously. It's not ours or Ians fault that the offer wasn't taken up!

[ramboacdc]

7 minutes ago, Loxm said:

Thank you for some common sense! As i've already said, we have invited FTR on previously. It's not ours or Ians fault that the offer wasn't taken up!

Exactly. It wasn't the point of contention that the offer wasn't taken up for sure. It's what Ian said and the hosts didn't stop him from saying stuff he shouldn't, but that is easilly explained as it isn't in the hosts job to read the rules of an election, it's Ian's job to know them as board member of the trust and previous chairman. 

Onus is on Ian here. He either knows the rules and ignored them, or doesn't know the rules he has to abide to and has fell foul. Both of which are bad in their own right.  

 

[Paninistickers]

2 hours ago, ramboacdc said:

Exactly. It wasn't the point of contention that the offer wasn't taken up for sure. It's what Ian said and the hosts didn't stop him from saying stuff he shouldn't, but that is easilly explained as it isn't in the hosts job to read the rules of an election, it's Ian's job to know them as board member of the trust and previous chairman. 

Onus is on Ian here. He either knows the rules and ignored them, or doesn't know the rules he has to abide to and has fell foul. Both of which are bad in their own right.  

 

Exactly this. The channel is in no way culpable.

 

Can only presume the fella is in full panic mode that he's possibly about to lose his life's work and raisin detre.  I have some sympathy on a human level with that. But on a practical level - of leading an organisation that should hold the club to account and be its conscience, its soul - he's well past his bedtime. 

 

In fact, wouldn't be a bad idea that any serving board member is restricted to, sy, 5/8/10 years. 

Edited 17 December 2025 by Paninistickers

[Foxes_Trust]

On 16/12/2025 at 16:42, Zear0 said:

Shocked to see Bason top of the list... Was almost giving them the benefit of the doubt and say it was alphabetical, but it isn't. 

The election software used for online voting generates a random sequence of candidates, so if two members compared they will be highly unlikely to see the same sequence.

 

The candidate statements on the website are listed in alphabetical order (surname) which is common practice and was decided prior to the election process commencing (before nomination forms could be requested)

[Paninistickers]

2 minutes ago, Foxes_Trust said:

The election software used for online voting generates a random sequence of candidates, so if two members compared they will be highly unlikely to see the same sequence.

 

The candidate statements on the website are listed in alphabetical order (surname) which is common practice and was decided prior to the election process commencing (before nomination forms could be requested)

Correct. Basin was at the bottom of my list.

 

However, the bigger point is the apparent election campaigning breach. Care to comment?

[Foxes_Trust]

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

Correct. Basin was at the bottom of my list.

 

However, the bigger point is the apparent election campaigning breach. Care to comment?

The Election Management Group are responsible for any decisions regarding all aspects of the election.

[foxinsocks]

2 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Exactly this. The channel is in no way culpable.

 

Can only presume the fella is in full panic mode that he's possibly about to lose his life's work and raisin detre.  I have some sympathy on a human level with that. But on a practical level - of leading an organisation that should hold the club to account and be its conscience, its soul - he's well past his bedtime. 

 

In fact, wouldn't be a bad idea that any serving board member is restricted to, sy, 5/8/10 years. 

Some people are scared of change and defend the status quo. But it is high time for change.... look where we are.
 
Things are changing in football... and that includes the role and position of supporters trusts.  Look at the mess our club is in on and off the field. 
Top seems content with his advisors... but even his latest pr initiative seems to have made things worse.  
 
So, our supporters trust must be able to speak up to encourage the club to be much much better on and off the field.  Look where the trust's appeasement (a diplomatic strategy of making concessions to avoid conflict) has got us.
So we need a trust with a new appoach.
 
Now mr Bason is playing the "project fear" card.... he is scared yet he is mistaken.... its not about protest or "walking away". Yes we do want a better FEF... yes we do want a trust that will call out the club and work with the club to make the club better.... and to make the relationship with the fans better

Edited 17 December 2025 by foxinsocks

[Paninistickers]

Just watching the interview. Swei f as work has all but closed.

 

 It's poor stuff from Basin.

 

He's repeatedly speaking on behalf of 'FTR'  (are the even an official group?) and sowing seeds of malintent on behalf of the individuals standing for election. I've seen no such comments in any election statements from candidates threatening to use Trust savings or withdraw cooperation with the club .

 

He's no right to make campaigning statements on their behalf. Particularly with no right of reply. 

 

He needs disqualifying. 

[ramboacdc]

On 17/12/2025 at 18:30, Paninistickers said:

Exactly this. The channel is in no way culpable.

 

Can only presume the fella is in full panic mode that he's possibly about to lose his life's work and raisin detre.  I have some sympathy on a human level with that. But on a practical level - of leading an organisation that should hold the club to account and be its conscience, its soul - he's well past his bedtime. 

 

In fact, wouldn't be a bad idea that any serving board member is restricted to, sy, 5/8/10 years. 

If he did build this up from the ground and is now worried about losing it, you still have to stick to the rules. It's not even like its a crazy conveluted rule. It is basic etiquette to a point. 

This is the first time there have been elections as before stuff got nodded through and member of the trust seemed happy to be playing meetings "ooh I will be treasurer, I will be note taker!" and nothing really happening. 2023/24 was when the club started to circle the drain a bit and people wanted a supporter group to get behind and went for the trust. They didn't know how to handle this as they usually just sit and do a few things, have Jim sit at the back of the AGM, update the blog and post the minutes on FT. 

A lot of the stuff that FTR mention is just basic stuff to make the trust function better, but with some current members, they don't want to go against the club as they may lose their ability to have Ricardo turn up to be interviewed or use Seagrave as a meeting location and get to sit on the press area tables of the KP and play makebelieve. No one has ever said that if a few people on the board wanted some reformation of the trust that they would instantly become a protest group just because they said they want to hold the club to account for stuff. People asked legit questions such as "why does the trust have £xx in a current account earning little/no interest?" To which the response was "in case we need to buy shares of the club again." To a point, that makes sense. The question was asked why it couldn't be moved to earn some interest somewhere, which has now been twisted to "they are coming to raid our money". It's the opposite, but the current board don't like change, as this was set up as something they could do together, now they don't want others playing with them. 

It's just unprofessional to the core and shows they were not fit for purpose before, and they aren't now. Change isn't bad, but it is to certain members as they want to sit and play pretend.   100% agree with term restrictions for sure. The trust already has an issue with not getting young members in. Not going to get many more in when it's the same folks on the board just getting older and out of touch with the upcoming generations of fans. 
 

7 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Just watching the interview. Swei f as work has all but closed.

 

 It's poor stuff from Basin.

 

He's repeatedly speaking on behalf of 'FTR'  (are the even an official group?) and sowing seeds of malintent on behalf of the individuals standing for election. I've seen no such comments in any election statements from candidates threatening to use Trust savings or withdraw cooperation with the club .

 

He's no right to make campaigning statements on their behalf. Particularly with no right of reply. 

 

He needs disqualifying. 

There is a whatsapp community, a mailing list and the account here. All of which post the same updates to the people who are subscribed to them. The way it is painted, there are weekly meetings at 3am in market square where people wear long trench cloaks and pass dossiers to eachother. 

At best, it's people on here or other forums who wanted the trust to do something, a few people made mailing lists and a whatsapp group and just helped get stuff organised. It's not really a coup like it is being painted as. People want to improve the trust, but others on the trust don't and just want to play minute taker and say they sit on the board of a trust for whatever points that scores you (or in some cases get you onto other boards and then you name drop that into your re-election statement....).

I am not 100% sure on how many would need to be elected to have "control" of the trust like Ian mentions, but it isn't about control. Everyone is on the same side here, but some people don't want to give up the cushty and possible perks. 

All we can do for now is vote and see what happens. No reason to doubt the result as it is all independent, and the current board members will have people backing them just as much as the FTR endorsed candidates. The final results will be fascinating. 

[Paninistickers]

4 minutes ago, ramboacdc said:

some people don't want to give up the cushty and possible perks. 

Agree with almost all of the above. I might be a bit more generous though. I think it's probably a hobby that's become a lifestyle. 

 

The same breed of punter as those who sit as a school governor, parish councillor and litter picker. These same names revolve around and around,.disappearing from the council chambers and then reappearing as a park run organiser. And so it goes on. 

 

Point being, the trust hierarchy has  had it easy. But it's not theirs. It's ours. Same as the club itself. I've never seen it as property of Top's or Whelan's or Martin George or Terry Shipman's. It's mine. It's ours. 

[ramboacdc]

6 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Agree with almost all of the above. I might be a bit more generous though. I think it's probably a hobby that's become a lifestyle. 

 

The same breed of punter as those who sit as a school governor, parish councillor and litter picker. These same names revolve around and around,.disappearing from the council chambers and then reappearing as a park run organiser. And so it goes on. 

 

Point being, the trust hierarchy has  had it easy. But it's not theirs. It's ours. Same as the club itself. I've never seen it as property of Top's or Whelan's or Martin George or Terry Shipman's. It's mine. It's ours. 

Hobby was the word I was looking for and couldn't remember. 

The fact it didn't come to the front of my head tells me I need to come off FT for the day 

[foxinsocks]

6 hours ago, ramboacdc said:

If he did build this up from the ground and is now worried about losing it, you still have to stick to the rules. It's not even like its a crazy conveluted rule. It is basic etiquette to a point. 

This is the first time there have been elections as before stuff got nodded through and member of the trust seemed happy to be playing meetings "ooh I will be treasurer, I will be note taker!" and nothing really happening. 2023/24 was when the club started to circle the drain a bit and people wanted a supporter group to get behind and went for the trust. They didn't know how to handle this as they usually just sit and do a few things, have Jim sit at the back of the AGM, update the blog and post the minutes on FT. 

A lot of the stuff that FTR mention is just basic stuff to make the trust function better, but with some current members, they don't want to go against the club as they may lose their ability to have Ricardo turn up to be interviewed or use Seagrave as a meeting location and get to sit on the press area tables of the KP and play makebelieve. No one has ever said that if a few people on the board wanted some reformation of the trust that they would instantly become a protest group just because they said they want to hold the club to account for stuff. People asked legit questions such as "why does the trust have £xx in a current account earning little/no interest?" To which the response was "in case we need to buy shares of the club again." To a point, that makes sense. The question was asked why it couldn't be moved to earn some interest somewhere, which has now been twisted to "they are coming to raid our money". It's the opposite, but the current board don't like change, as this was set up as something they could do together, now they don't want others playing with them. 

It's just unprofessional to the core and shows they were not fit for purpose before, and they aren't now. Change isn't bad, but it is to certain members as they want to sit and play pretend.   100% agree with term restrictions for sure. The trust already has an issue with not getting young members in. Not going to get many more in when it's the same folks on the board just getting older and out of touch with the upcoming generations of fans. 
 

There is a whatsapp community, a mailing list and the account here. All of which post the same updates to the people who are subscribed to them. The way it is painted, there are weekly meetings at 3am in market square where people wear long trench cloaks and pass dossiers to eachother. 

At best, it's people on here or other forums who wanted the trust to do something, a few people made mailing lists and a whatsapp group and just helped get stuff organised. It's not really a coup like it is being painted as. People want to improve the trust, but others on the trust don't and just want to play minute taker and say they sit on the board of a trust for whatever points that scores you (or in some cases get you onto other boards and then you name drop that into your re-election statement....).

I am not 100% sure on how many would need to be elected to have "control" of the trust like Ian mentions, but it isn't about control. Everyone is on the same side here, but some people don't want to give up the cushty and possible perks. 

All we can do for now is vote and see what happens. No reason to doubt the result as it is all independent, and the current board members will have people backing them just as much as the FTR endorsed candidates. The final results will be fascinating. 

We reformers want a trust that is relevent and stands up to the club to improve the club.  To be important we need to increase membership... and that will only happen if fans believe that trust membership is worthwhile.  We do want a much much better FEF. And we do think a board with diverse opinions and reasonable churn is healthy.

Times are changing.  The board of the trust is too tired... they are not wicked... but their softly softly approach has failed us all. ..

their day is gone

 

Edited 19 December 2025 by foxinsocks

[Foxes Trust Reform]

15 hours ago, ramboacdc said:

If he did build this up from the ground and is now worried about losing it, you still have to stick to the rules. It's not even like its a crazy conveluted rule. It is basic etiquette to a point. 

This is the first time there have been elections as before stuff got nodded through and member of the trust seemed happy to be playing meetings "ooh I will be treasurer, I will be note taker!" and nothing really happening. 2023/24 was when the club started to circle the drain a bit and people wanted a supporter group to get behind and went for the trust. They didn't know how to handle this as they usually just sit and do a few things, have Jim sit at the back of the AGM, update the blog and post the minutes on FT. 

A lot of the stuff that FTR mention is just basic stuff to make the trust function better, but with some current members, they don't want to go against the club as they may lose their ability to have Ricardo turn up to be interviewed or use Seagrave as a meeting location and get to sit on the press area tables of the KP and play makebelieve. No one has ever said that if a few people on the board wanted some reformation of the trust that they would instantly become a protest group just because they said they want to hold the club to account for stuff. People asked legit questions such as "why does the trust have £xx in a current account earning little/no interest?" To which the response was "in case we need to buy shares of the club again." To a point, that makes sense. The question was asked why it couldn't be moved to earn some interest somewhere, which has now been twisted to "they are coming to raid our money". It's the opposite, but the current board don't like change, as this was set up as something they could do together, now they don't want others playing with them. 

It's just unprofessional to the core and shows they were not fit for purpose before, and they aren't now. Change isn't bad, but it is to certain members as they want to sit and play pretend.   100% agree with term restrictions for sure. The trust already has an issue with not getting young members in. Not going to get many more in when it's the same folks on the board just getting older and out of touch with the upcoming generations of fans. 
 

There is a whatsapp community, a mailing list and the account here. All of which post the same updates to the people who are subscribed to them. The way it is painted, there are weekly meetings at 3am in market square where people wear long trench cloaks and pass dossiers to eachother. 

At best, it's people on here or other forums who wanted the trust to do something, a few people made mailing lists and a whatsapp group and just helped get stuff organised. It's not really a coup like it is being painted as. People want to improve the trust, but others on the trust don't and just want to play minute taker and say they sit on the board of a trust for whatever points that scores you (or in some cases get you onto other boards and then you name drop that into your re-election statement....).

I am not 100% sure on how many would need to be elected to have "control" of the trust like Ian mentions, but it isn't about control. Everyone is on the same side here, but some people don't want to give up the cushty and possible perks. 

All we can do for now is vote and see what happens. No reason to doubt the result as it is all independent, and the current board members will have people backing them just as much as the FTR endorsed candidates. The final results will be fascinating. 

This very much spot on.

 

If you look at many of the positive things the Trust has done in the last year or so, the fingerprints of people from our campaign are all over them. Of course there were a couple of people on the board who have no doubt been open to helping and change (as a campaign we've always backed Lynn Wyeth and we believe Paul Rains has done some good work for the Trust), but there are a good number we see/hear nothing from (and suspect they do nothing other than turn up to a board meeting every now and then). 

• We do not want to change the Trust into a protest group - we do want it to be less afraid of calling the club out and holding it to account. But if you look at what's happened to Sheffield Wednesday and the role their Trust played recently, it's foolish and potentially dangerous to say "the Foxes Trust will not be a protest group". There may come a day it has to be.

• Regarding the spurious insinuations that we have ill intentions with Trust funds by Ian Bason, all we've ever said is that the Trust should be doing more to make its money work for the benefit of its members and the wider fan base. Only following pressure from our campaign is the Trust even earning significant interest on the money it has in the bank.

• We felt the Trust should be doing more in the community and have managed to get a working group in the Trust dedicated to doing this. They are working with LCFC In The Community.

• There have been numerous instances of better collaboration between the Trust and Union FS. We're encouraged to see a member of Union FS up for election.

• It was only Matt Davis and Paul Rains from the Trust board alongside Becky, Harry and Jamie that did work to distribute the End of Season Survey which gathered 3,200+ responses. The volunteer team that distributed it were gathered largely from people in our campaign who helped as they wanted to support the Trust doing something impactful.

• We wanted to reduce the membership fee either entirely or to the absolute minimum to drive the Trust to a mass membership organisation, the Trust board eventually agreed to reduce to £5.

• We wanted the Trust to change the rules so that board members could be removed if members felt their weren't doing a good job. The legacy board actively advised the membership base to vote against this and there is still no way to hold them to account themselves except when they are up for re-election.

• The look, feel and tone of the Communications from the Trust has been much improved due to the work done by our board members - even though, as mentioned earlier in this thread, Ian Bason is now seemingly undoing some of that work by bypassing the Comms group.

Read the above and compare this progress to what the Trust was doing before our campaign: who do you think are the group of people to be wary of? The legacy board or those from our campaign?

 

It's disappointing to see Ian Bason able to campaign on Blue Tinted Glasses show against those he is standing for election alongside. It's also disappointing to hear that many of those that have shared their concerns have not heard anything about action being taken to address this but have received threatening emails from Alan Digby.

[LC1884FC]

Got a shirty response to my complaint about Ian Bason's appearance on the podcast from the "election board".

 

They also CC'd everyone that had complained in the same email which is clearly a GDPR breach. Complete amateurs.

[Clogger_]

This is a depressing read. Bason and stooges need to be removed ASAP. Good luck with the campaign folks. And while I know it's not your intent, the odd "protest" is exactly what is needed at our club

Edited 24 December 2025 by Clogger_
I originally used the word "culling". Suspect some of the FT board are sufficiently pathetic to complain about that particular word, so I replaced with anodyne words!

[Clogger_]

16 minutes ago, LC1884FC said:

Got a shirty response to my complaint about Ian Bason's appearance on the podcast from the "election board".

 

They also CC'd everyone that had complained in the same email which is clearly a GDPR breach. Complete amateurs.

Utter losers, like most of the hangers on at our club

[Globalfox]

39 minutes ago, LC1884FC said:

Got a shirty response to my complaint about Ian Bason's appearance on the podcast from the "election board".

 

They also CC'd everyone that had complained in the same email which is clearly a GDPR breach. Complete amateurs.

Cannot say I am surprised as technically Mr Bason did not breach the rules. I strongly encourage those standing to actively campaign that is perfectly allowable. Let’s ask the podcast for a right to rebuttal interviews. Post continuously on every  forum with the messages. Fight fire with fire you have a good message then you need to tell the story, retell the story until you swamp the voting. The largest growth of the trust since inception has been on the back of the reform call continue to press it home. In the home straight bring it on home.

[foxinsocks]

We all watched the video.

 

As a board member, did mr bason comment on candidates in an election?

As a candidate did he knock his opponents ...aka campaigning under the auspicies of the "foxes trust interview"?

 

Yet presumably he could do it all again?

 

Everyone will make up their own minds and upon the credibility of this process.

 

To be effective we need a trust with a large membership... and that requires fans to believe the trust is worthwhile.

Edited 24 December 2025 by foxinsocks

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, Globalfox said:

Cannot say I am surprised as technically Mr Bason did not breach the rules. I strongly encourage those standing to actively campaign that is perfectly allowable. Let’s ask the podcast for a right to rebuttal interviews. Post continuously on every  forum with the messages. Fight fire with fire you have a good message then you need to tell the story, retell the story until you swamp the voting. The largest growth of the trust since inception has been on the back of the reform call continue to press it home. In the home straight bring it on home.

I've also seen the reply. Tried to infer how the nature of the response could indicate how the vote was going. The whole thing had obviously got under Alan Digby's skin, and he signed off "there will be no further correspondence on this matter". Maybe he's rattled, who knows.

[kenny]

1 minute ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I've also seen the reply. Tried to infer how the nature of the response could indicate how the vote was going. The whole thing had obviously got under Alan Digby's skin, and he signed off "there will be no further correspondence on this matter". Maybe he's rattled, who knows.

Can you post the response on here?

 

Surely the @Foxes_Trust should comment formally. If no rules have been broken then a statement confirming why this is the case would be best I think.

[foxinsocks]

4 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I've also seen the reply. Tried to infer how the nature of the response could indicate how the vote was going. The whole thing had obviously got under Alan Digby's skin, and he signed off "there will be no further correspondence on this matter". Maybe he's rattled, who knows.

I would be very concerned if digby had access to the ongoing voting.... anyone know of he does?

[foxinsocks]

2 hours ago, Globalfox said:

Cannot say I am surprised as technically Mr Bason did not breach the rules. I strongly encourage those standing to actively campaign that is perfectly allowable. Let’s ask the podcast for a right to rebuttal interviews. Post continuously on every  forum with the messages. Fight fire with fire you have a good message then you need to tell the story, retell the story until you swamp the voting. The largest growth of the trust since inception has been on the back of the reform call continue to press it home. In the home straight bring it on 

As a board member, did mr bason comment on candidates in an election?

As a candidate did he knock his opponents ...aka campaigning under the auspicies of the "foxes trust interview"?

Yes to either is a breach.

[foxinsocks]

9 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I've also seen the reply. Tried to infer how the nature of the response could indicate how the vote was going. The whole thing had obviously got under Alan Digby's skin, and he signed off "there will be no further correspondence on this matter". Maybe he's rattled, who knows.

Also... the reply relies on the fsa input.  Yet this does not tally with the feedback from the fsa.............. oh dear!

[Sol thewall Bamba]

45 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

I would be very concerned if digby had access to the ongoing voting.... anyone know of he does?

No idea. The voting system was via an online 3rd party system so no idea if the people running it have access to votes until the vote has closed.

[Loxm]

4 hours ago, Globalfox said:

Cannot say I am surprised as technically Mr Bason did not breach the rules. I strongly encourage those standing to actively campaign that is perfectly allowable. Let’s ask the podcast for a right to rebuttal interviews. Post continuously on every  forum with the messages. Fight fire with fire you have a good message then you need to tell the story, retell the story until you swamp the voting. The largest growth of the trust since inception has been on the back of the reform call continue to press it home. In the home straight bring it on home.

It has been interesting watching this unfold! 

 

I would say this.. Apologies if any of the other candidates feel like they are 'disadvantaged' by Mr Bason appearing on the channel, although there has been an open offer for a while now for any of them to come on. It's not down to me to determine whats right or wrong as I dont know the election rules, but i could also see why Ian would want to do the interview to maybe defend himself having been dragged through the mud a little bit online without the luxury or responding and hiding behind a group like.. i dont know.. 'foxes trust remain'? haha you get what i mean..

 

My own PERSONAL view point on the "knocking of opponents".. I saw it as Mr Bason commenting on the Foxes Trust Reform as a group and he didn't talk about or name any individual candidates (one of which appear on our channel regularly). Of course it's not rocket science to put 2+2 together and figure out who those candidates are by looking at FTR X page or FoxesTalk Posts.

 

Interestingly though, reading the candidates election statements I actually didn't have a clue which 4 were FTR guys other than Steve because he's a friend. Maybe I am thick. Maybe it was the 300 word limit. 

 

Either way, good luck to all of those running for election! Hopefully in future more come on and give their views on the Trust and the club! The offer is still, and will remain on the table