Foxes Trust End of Season Survey Results - Wednesday 27th May (7:30pm) live on YouTube

[Jon the Hat]

4000+ is a huge response, well done Trust for getting this done.  If the club ignore such a survey they are being willfully blind to the fans feelings.

 

On another note, 188 people rate the ownership performance as good or very good..... How many people work for the club at the moment?

[MrLuke]

54 minutes ago, Ricey said:

The club were shown the raw data, plus the calls to action.

Those boxes are just to aid quick maths and highlight notable findings for people scrolling through, as there are a lot of questions.

Fair enough, just thought I would add my thoughts. Personally I find the call out boxes leading. Like I say though, great work.

[ian__marshall]

24 minutes ago, Officer Doofy said:

Kind of disagree

 

What survey has had more responses? The clubs own surveys don't. 

But the issue isn't the number of responses as per the clubs comments to the media. Their viewpoint is that the results are only representative of one groups members and aren't necessarily the views shared by the wider fanbase.

 

I agree that the sample size is good in comparison to other surveys, but the point I'm trying to convey is that because the results are only aligned with one group there's an argument that they are biased regardless of how many guardrails have been applied to prevent such bias. 

 

By engaging other groups and getting their backing, you effectively eliminate that argument. Do I think the argument is fair? No, however the opportunity has been presented for the club to find a way of devaluing the results and has taken it with both hands. The next survey needs to close off any opportunity for easy excuses and bring the focus firmly back on to the topics in hand. 

[Stuntman_Mike]

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

4000+ is a huge response, well done Trust for getting this done.  If the club ignore such a survey they are being willfully blind to the fans feelings.

 

On another note, 188 people rate the ownership performance as good or very good..... How many people work for the club at the moment?

188.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

56 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

Typical generic response from the club. Frustrating that they are taking the stance that the Trust are one of many fan groups they are consulting, thereby diluting the value of the survey as the argument is simply that it represents only one cohort of the fan base. 

 

As a suggestion to the Trust for future surveys, it would be worth networking and collaborating with other fan groups to distribute any future surveys across multiple groups. It would then be representative of the broader fan view and dismiss any argument by the club that the results are limited in their scope. 

 

I realise that the survey was not restricted to the Trust's members and in terms of demographic representation was all encompassing, however it's too easy for the club to pass the results off as only a minority view despite the sample size. Being objective, whilst the numbers are good for a survey of this type, they only represent c. 18% of the match going fanbase and probably less than 5% of the overall fan base, so whilst an indicator there will always be an argument that without consultation and support of other groups the feedback is limited in its scope. 

 

You might have missed this on the call last night, or be commenting without having seen it and the explanation of the distribution approach, but 15,000 hard copy leaflets were handed out before four matches, all other fan groups were alerted to the survey and asked to push to their members and the Supporters Club took leaflets to put on their coaches up to Blackburn away. 

 

You literally could not do more to widen the sample than just Foxes Trust members.

 

The club know the sample is good and they are not in any way questioning that. What they possibly are at risk of misunderstanding is that this isn’t simply a case of only unhappy fans taking this survey - sure there might be a slight slant, in the same way you’re more likely to do a review after a bad experience, but the numbers and overwhelming trends in the data mean that is flawed logic.

[izzymuzzet]

Thought I'd have a quick check of how many responses similar surveys from other clubs received.

 

First few results I found:

 

Spurs got 5,202 in 2025: https://thstofficial.com/supporterssurvey2025/

Portsmouth got 1,126 in 2026: https://pompeytrust.com/news/psts-2026-supporter-survey-results 

Forest got 189 in 2024: https://nffctrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/NFST-Survey-results.pdf.pagespeed.ce.t0pfM57CSs.pdf 

 

So 4,400 looks like a very decent response. 

 

 

[ian__marshall]

44 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

You might have missed this on the call last night, or be commenting without having seen it and the explanation of the distribution approach, but 15,000 hard copy leaflets were handed out before four matches, all other fan groups were alerted to the survey and asked to push to their members and the Supporters Club took leaflets to put on their coaches up to Blackburn away. 

 

You literally could not do more to widen the sample than just Foxes Trust members.

 

The club know the sample is good and they are not in any way questioning that. What they possibly are at risk of misunderstanding is that this isn’t simply a case of only unhappy fans taking this survey - sure there might be a slight slant, in the same way you’re more likely to do a review after a bad experience, but the numbers and overwhelming trends in the data mean that is flawed logic.

I watched the results presentation last night live and did hear the details. For the record my views are not to be interpreted as criticism. The survey is an unbelievable undertaking and as others have mentioned the sample size is absolutely a strong indicator of fan sentiment in my view. 

 

However, seeing the response from the club, has not surprised me. Yet again I have little faith that they will embrace the feedback and hold themselves to account. Rather they'll shrug off the results and take minimal action citing misalignment of views following consultation with other groups. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the sample size is significant and cannot be ignored. However, to say that other supporter groups were alerted to the survey, and yes some of their members may have completed the survey, is not the same as saying they were consulted on their views, and they collaborated with the Trust to fully endorse the survey and stand behind the results lending their name to the outcomes presented. 

 

I would also agree that statistically given the number of leaflets distributed, a near 30% response rate is towards the higher end. But it's all about perspectives and the lens through which each party views the results. You and I will see this as a great response and a true representation of fan sentiment, the club on the other hand will likely argue that the sentiment portrayed isn't as strong as suggested if two thirds chose not to engage, regardless of the statistical significance. 

 

I appreciate the efforts of those involved, everyone is doing a good job especially as it's voluntary work taking up personal time. I would  personally like to thank each individual for trying to create change; it's important given the current state of the club. I just think that there will be learnings on this journey and it's important that they are considered moving forwards to avoid giving those at the club who are accountable for listening and affecting change any excuse to dismiss or reduce the significance of the information put before them.

 

Edited 28 May by ian__marshall

[davieG]

2 hours ago, Raj said:

I just want to hear what the clubs reaction to all this is.

 

If its like i predict, it will be a load of waffle...

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, ian__marshall said:

Typical generic response from the club. Frustrating that they are taking the stance that the Trust are one of many fan groups they are consulting, thereby diluting the value of the survey as the argument is simply that it represents only one cohort of the fan base. 

 

As a suggestion to the Trust for future surveys, it would be worth networking and collaborating with other fan groups to distribute any future surveys across multiple groups. It would then be representative of the broader fan view and dismiss any argument by the club that the results are limited in their scope. 

 

I realise that the survey was not restricted to the Trust's members and in terms of demographic representation was all encompassing, however it's too easy for the club to pass the results off as only a minority view despite the sample size. Being objective, whilst the numbers are good for a survey of this type, they only represent c. 18% of the match going fanbase and probably less than 5% of the overall fan base, so whilst an indicator there will always be an argument that without consultation and support of other groups the feedback is limited in its scope. 

 

To be fair we do. And the club are aware of that because it was mentioned at their own hosted event. We offered  the club a chance to collaborate on it. Even suggesting bring in a third party with the key skills in surveying. Hence we did our own call out to people with backgrounds in it and put the survey through three people to test the accusations of bias etc 
 

The survey was brought to everyone’s attention at the FCC where all fan groups attend. They were given the chance to take part and have their say

 

There’s a what’s app group additionally with all the fan group ‘leaders’ in it too which the link was shared. 
 

Everything is shared to local press. Mercury and BBC Leicester made a by mention. 
 

We didn’t quite get 5k but we got more than last season which in the face of apathy was some effort, we openly leafleted at a game where both crowds were notably low too. 

 

Other fan groups are always offered the opportunity to join us on campaigns. Yet the take up is very low. There’s a real lack of actual proper engagement in my opinion. The other fan groups rightly have their own concentrations; in some cases specific to a certain cause. There’s isn’t really another fan group what would describe itself as an over riding group for everyone imo 

Edited 28 May by CosbehFox

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

58 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

I watched the results presentation last night live and did hear the details. For the record my views are not to be interpreted as criticism. The survey is an unbelievable undertaking and as others have mentioned the sample size is absolutely a strong indicator of fan sentiment in my view. 

 

However, seeing the response from the club, has not surprised me. Yet again I have little faith that they will embrace the feedback and hold themselves to account. Rather they'll shrug off the results and take minimal action citing misalignment of views following consultation with other groups. 

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the sample size is significant and cannot be ignored. However, to say that other supporter groups were alerted to the survey, and yes some of their members may have completed the survey, is not the same as saying they were consulted on their views, and they collaborated with the Trust to fully endorse the survey and stand behind the results lending their name to the outcomes presented. 

 

I would also agree that statistically given the number of leaflets distributed, a near 30% response rate is towards the higher end. But it's all about perspectives and the lens through which each party views the results. You and I will see this as a great response and a true representation of fan sentiment, the club on the other hand will likely argue that the sentiment portrayed isn't as strong as suggested if two thirds chose not to engage, regardless of the statistical significance. 

 

I appreciate the efforts of those involved, everyone is doing a good job especially as it's voluntary work taking up personal time. I would  personally like to thank each individual for trying to create change; it's important given the current state of the club. I just think that there will be learnings on this journey and it's important that they are considered moving forwards to avoid giving those at the club who are accountable for listening and affecting change any excuse to dismiss or reduce the significance of the information put before them.

 

Calculating a response rate based on leaflet distribution is misleading. I did the survey as I saw it promoted on social media and emails etc and I didn’t get a leaflet. It was distributed in ways that weren’t controlled, but as you would expect. Ultimately it’s not possible to calculate a response rate, but we do know that the overall level of participation is very strong. 
 

Also most of the sample are not FT members so this idea it’s the views of one group is not right either - if the club use that to criticise they are mistaken. Going over the findings it would seem to me that the sample reflects the views of a mostly long term, experienced and committed fan base from various factions and with different engagement/ticketing behaviour. There are many signs of this all having really good breadth and legitimacy.

 

Those who developed the survey did consult with individuals and, by extension different groups, in respect of the survey design. With surveys you only get data on the questions you ask, and it seems to me the engagement in terms of what was asked was also fairly robust. Also other groups did publicise the survey and push it. I’m not sure what else they could have done!

[Raj]

52 minutes ago, davieG said:

Yep unfortunately this is 100% the case.

 

Its like doing a 100 page presentation for your Manager and they just say" yeah whack it on me desk i'll look at it later if i have time"

 

 

[AKCJ]

Is there a write up of this or is it just the video?

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

14 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

Calculating a response rate based on leaflet distribution is misleading. I did the survey as I saw it promoted on social media and emails etc and I didn’t get a leaflet. It was distributed in ways that weren’t controlled, but as you would expect. Ultimately it’s not possible to calculate a response rate, but we do know that the overall level of participation is very strong. 
 

Also most of the sample are not FT members so this idea it’s the views of one group is not right either - if the club use that to criticise they are mistaken. Going over the findings it would seem to me that the sample reflects the views of a mostly long term, experienced and committed fan base from various factions and with different engagement/ticketing behaviour. There are many signs of this all having really good breadth and legitimacy.

 

Those who developed the survey did consult with individuals and, by extension different groups, in respect of the survey design. With surveys you only get data on the questions you ask, and it seems to me the engagement in terms of what was asked was also fairly robust. Also other groups did publicise the survey and push it. I’m not sure what else they could have done!

Also I’m not sure it’s right or helpful to criticise all this for not coming from all the groups. It sort of assumes there is no overlap between the groups in terms of individuals and views. I noted one of the lads on the reveal on YouTube is also in UFS for example, and do we have any evidence that each group has significantly different views? If anything, I think at this point views are all pretty unified!

[davieG]

10 minutes ago, Raj said:

Yep unfortunately this is 100% the case.

 

Its like doing a 100 page presentation for your Manager and they just say" yeah whack it on me desk i'll look at it later if i have time"

 

 

This is slightly better because in the work case you'll have been hounded to get it done ASAP and then nothing.

[Broof]

4 hours ago, Ricey said:

The club have issued a response via the Mercury: https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-foxes-trust-survery-10985843

Are they taking the piss? 

 

Call to action 2: A reset of the Fan Engagement Framework 

 

Lcfc "spokesperson" (who?) response: "The Club remains committed to ongoing dialogue with supporters and supporter groups, including the Foxes Trust, as part of our wider supporter engagement work and our continued development of our Fan Engagement Plan." 

 

Might as well have just sent a poo emoji.

 

And I'm not sure why the Mercury "journalist" has put his name on top of the article when all they've done is collate statements from two parties and put it in one place. Does that even count as journalism? 

[The Doctor]

truly fascinated by the ~3% of people who think Rudkin is doing an excellent job with very good player recruitment. 

[Pita]

Does not matter what the fans say. They won’t take any notice 

[Ricey]

2 hours ago, AKCJ said:

Is there a write up of this or is it just the video?

You can find an article covering the process and results here: https://foxestrust.co.uk/12501/foxes-trust-end-of-season-survey-full-results-published

 

…and we have also put together a webpage that includes all of the results and related calls to action: https://foxestrust.co.uk/surveys 

[davieG]

23 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

truly fascinated by the ~3% of people who think Rudkin is doing an excellent job with very good player recruitment. 

They just don't like the FT

[lfu]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

truly fascinated by the ~3% of people who think Rudkin is doing an excellent job with very good player recruitment. 

1 hour ago, davieG said:

They just don't like the FT

Have we ruled out the possibility of Ian Bason taking the survey 130 times?

[Sly]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

truly fascinated by the ~3% of people who think Rudkin is doing an excellent job with very good player recruitment. 

Jon filled that in. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

2 hours ago, Broof said:

Are they taking the piss? 

 

Call to action 2: A reset of the Fan Engagement Framework 

 

Lcfc "spokesperson" (who?) response: "The Club remains committed to ongoing dialogue with supporters and supporter groups, including the Foxes Trust, as part of our wider supporter engagement work and our continued development of our Fan Engagement Plan." 

 

Might as well have just sent a poo emoji.

 

And I'm not sure why the Mercury "journalist" has put his name on top of the article when all they've done is collate statements from two parties and put it in one place. Does that even count as journalism? 

The women who put this in place quit after 18 months or so and went back to work in cricket.

Edited 28 May by Sol thewall Bamba

[Jon the Hat]

13 hours ago, Sly said:

Jon filled that in. 

Can we please make sure we use his surname just to avoid any doubt...

[The Year Of The Fox]

15 hours ago, The Doctor said:

truly fascinated by the ~3% of people who think Rudkin is doing an excellent job with very good player recruitment. 

You know this survey was available to Forest and Cov fans right? 

[Gazza M]

Unfortunately it wont break past the 3 people who met the FT representatives. They are just a shield to fob off.