Foxes_Trust Posted 17 May 2006 Share Posted 17 May 2006 I'm sure if Mr George wanted to come back in a boardroom position he could, and I believe he is a current shareholder, which implies he is not unhappy how the club is being run. I do believe he is a director at Grimsby 'tho, so he would have to resign that position first. He holds a small shareholding, the Trust holds more than treble the level of shares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 17 May 2006 Share Posted 17 May 2006 I want to touch on something said earlier about 'club propaganda- we're in it together etc'. I agree. It's so patronising. The spin which is applied on the OS and the cheesey propaganda is incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 17 May 2006 Share Posted 17 May 2006 Does not having a one year cycle make basic common sense? I wouldn't know, not working in the fashion/clothing industry. Obviously at the time the club thought it would maximise revenues. Do you work in the fashion/clothing industry, so you could have brought your influence to bear as a former member of the Foxes Trust, or are you using the benefit of hindsight now? It seems to me you feel you have all the answers and the club/FT none. It's just a shame that you can only criticise, how about some positive ideas the FT could take to the board ( and not just dreamy generalisations such as kidnap a rich multimillionaire until he/she signs a big fat cheque over, sack the board, or "maximise revenues"). I'm sure all serious suggestions would be most welcome, because at heart we all want one thing, and that is success for Leicester City. Very true, we do pick up positive suggestions from message boards, although we can't read every post over several message boards, so an e-mail to [email protected] would be a safer way of making us aware of a suggestion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 17 May 2006 Share Posted 17 May 2006 Foxes Trust. I know you answered me before on this... it's about the 'music concerts' we were supposed to have. Seems like a monumental cock up to me. It seems that the Walkers Stadium is not an attractive venue due to it's structure which dictates that a limit should be placed on the attendance, of around 15 000? What I want to know is.. did the club know this when they built the stadium or was it something they found out after it had been built ie several years after the research should have been done. This is part of the reason I think the club is a laughing stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 17 May 2006 Share Posted 17 May 2006 It seems to me the main problem the Foxes Trust has is that, like it or not, its image is one of being very closely aligned with the club itself. The supporters' main contact with members of the Trust elite seems to be on messageboards such as this one and the Fox Fanzine forum. Which means all of the frustrations with the club are instead fired at the Trust representatives who post on forums, because there seems to be no-one directly accountable at the club on a day-to-day basis who is willing to answer difficult questions in quite the same way as you can quite easily sit at a PC for half an hour typing a diatribe to the FT. To put across a truly representative image, it'd be nice to hear once and for all that transcripts of discussions/arguments people have with FT representatives on messageboards are passed on to the club and some sort of reply made public.... perhaps, shock of all shocks, on the club's official website - would make a change from the usual we-are-in-this-together propaganda (sorry, strong word but I can't think of any better). We are thinking of changing our style of communication & posting less responses to message board posts & instead picking up key themes from the message boards & doing more in depth website articles. We would be interested in posters views on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 17 May 2006 Share Posted 17 May 2006 I personally like to see the FT having a presence on the boards, it's probably the one way in my experience in which the 'representatives of the fans' tag actually rings true. I like to see a bit of response/input on here too... keep at it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 17 May 2006 Share Posted 17 May 2006 Another point I would like to make is that the "fans" do not all have the same thoughts, ideas and objectives that they would like the board to consider, and to say otherwise is patronising in the extreme. There may even be fans who are happy with the one year kit cycle, for instance, so even when the FT put points to the board, the FT cannot in all truthfulness say they are speaking for all the fans. Sorry about the length of this post, but I suppose in a nutshell I'm trying to say it ain't easy for the board, FT, other supporters' organisations, posters on forums or any other Tom Dick or Harry to effectively communicate together, let alone agree on anything! This is why we carry out members surveys via e-mail & present the results to the club. The numbers are statistically significant enough to be a barometer of the wide views of the fan base. In the case of the one year kit cycle only 9.1% of members who responded didn't have any issues with it. In the case of groundsharing it was a very close call, with a slight majority in favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 17 May 2006 Share Posted 17 May 2006 Foxes Trust. I know you answered me before on this... it's about the 'music concerts' we were supposed to have. Seems like a monumental cock up to me. It seems that the Walkers Stadium is not an attractive venue due to it's structure which dictates that a limit should be placed on the attendance, of around 15 000? What I want to know is.. did the club know this when they built the stadium or was it something they found out after it had been built ie several years after the research should have been done. This is part of the reason I think the club is a laughing stock. Not sure on this one. The previous board/owners built the stadium, we (the FT) didn't exist then to know the detail & those involved then are not around to ask. Whether pop concerts were of any priority to them is another factor, as they may have known & gone for cost savings knowing they had little intention of holding concerts. The current board/consortium were left with the resulting problems to resolve & therefore can't be blamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartonFox Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 While everybody does make mistakes & those who don't do nothing, we have to agree with Barton that the outcome in lack of sales was predictable & was exactly what we said to the club once aware of the one year cycle. The club isn't on the brink of disaster, we see enough information to know this is Barton scaremongering once again That's the point, why didn't you stand up and ask for a boycott? It isn't being disloyal and perhaps it would have got the Club seeing sense earlier in the day. Club isn't onthe brink of disaster??? Depends what you term disaster, but perhaps you need to ask a few more questions As for the TD skit, it was tounge in cheek but I am not the only one who thinks that is the basis of your relationship. Do you not think that is a problem that needs addressing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Doyle Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 Didn't this current board 1) Appoint Levein (OK it didn't work) (4 out of 10 compared to Ta@#$rs -4 out of 10) (God help Charlton) 2) Give Levein the green light to get rid of the old and bring in the young, looking to the future of the club? 3) Allow Levein plenty of time to develop the new squad and allow him a good, long chance to get on top of things? 4) Sack Levein after giving him the good, long chance? (Dreamers could say they acted too late and cost us the chance to compete for play offs) 5) Kept the same squad (Don't hear any negatives about this, except Tiatto) 6) Bring in Rob Kelly til the end of the season (Don't hear any negatives about his performance with the same squad. In fact nothing but complements) 7) By doing this provide the platform for the club to survive (Cant hear any complaints about surviving) 8) Appoint Rob Kelly for next season (Not heard one negative about this, in fact the rally call was he got what he deserves). Going into next season us the fans are probably more optimistic that in previous seasons as we have seen what Kelly can do with the squad he inherited. I would love to get on the board but the plain simple truth is that I cant afford it. Those who put their money up to save and run the club in my view deserve a little more credit than what's being given here. Not because there is a privileged few but because its their own hard earnt that saved the club. Off course the supporters who pay to watch the game, buy the shirts etc etc have also contributed. If you don't like what the board are doing then stand for the board. Its that simple. In my view there are more thumbs up than down. COME ON YOU MIGHTY FOXES MadMick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartonFox Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 5) Kept the same squad (Don't hear any negatives about this, except Tiatto) 6) Bring in Rob Kelly til the end of the season (Don't hear any negatives about his performance with the same squad. In fact nothing but complements) 7) By doing this provide the platform for the club to survive (Cant hear any complaints about surviving) 8) Appoint Rob Kelly for next season (Not heard one negative about this, in fact the rally call was he got what he deserves). The squad isn't good enough and it is paper thin. RK did well enough in results terms but our football is turgid and pretty rank and even the up-turn in performances resulted in 2000 extra arses on seats. Finishing in the lower half of the CCC is not going to ensure our survival and the appointment of RK on a 12 month contract smacks of little confidence in him fromt he BoD. What's your view on the below? Then you take our Board and Executives, lets look at the role of shame: La Manga - refused to accept MA's resignation then refused to release the report in to the investigation, despite saying "there will be no whitewash!" Pepsi Max Tourne - what a flop, although Mace did fall for that, but no one took responsibility for hiring him. Micky Adams - refusing his resignation again. Craig Levein - they really got that right didn't they. They got him in, I believe he was the best man for the job but instantly undermined him by bringing in their man to assist him, that doesn't work. Then when it wasn't working the delayed getting shot of him despite TD publicly stating he was happy with CL's long term plan. So how come those that selected him are still here? One Year Kit Cycle - talk about shafting the very lifeblood of the Club and isn't that against recommendations from the OFT? Ticket prices - fiasco and sheer arrogance. Stewarding and the SAG - spineless and disorganised, they let them ride roughshod over the home support. Groundshare - public statements then nothing materialises. Fans Surveys - apparently everything is rosy amongst the support - yeah right. Birchgate - you know that subject you aren't allowed to talk about but every single Leicester fan knows was true, but you stayed remarkably quiet on. We're in it together - are we bollox, we're in it because of their ineptitude and now they need us big time. No money reports - ooops the Mirror has started arses twitching at the Club and amongst our current creditors. Worst season in 15 years - be interested to know how those that oversaw this season are still considered good enough to take this Club forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Fynwy Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 maybe the trust could do with barton fox becoming a member , i am a member of the trust (another who just sends a tenner each year) and think it would be fantastic to get his points across in the way he has on these boards . maybe just maybe his take no s hit attitude could help the trust/ club move forward Why give the trust £10 a year to spend on running the trust and trying to buy shares in the club? I'd prefer it if we paid £10 more each for a season ticket and this money was used directly by the club (11,000 season tickets sold so far = £110,000 to spend on playing staff). I'd prefer to give the club £100 pounds directly than give the trust £10, however I won't give either anything more than I need to until I think that they know what they are doing otherwise I might as well flush it down the kazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 18 May 2006 Share Posted 18 May 2006 Why give the trust £10 a year to spend on running the trust and trying to buy shares in the club? I'd prefer it if we paid £10 more each for a season ticket and this money was used directly by the club (11,000 season tickets sold so far = £110,000 to spend on playing staff). I'd prefer to give the club £100 pounds directly than give the trust £10, however I won't give either anything more than I need to until I think that they know what they are doing otherwise I might as well flush it down the kazi. Our existing level of membership easily covers costs (as we run a tight ship) therefore additional members fees would speed up our fund raising efforts & enable us to invest our next targeted amount earlier in 2006. This additional money would then be available for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitesh Posted 19 May 2006 Share Posted 19 May 2006 Might sound like an idiot, but what was/is Birchgate??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 19 May 2006 Share Posted 19 May 2006 Their are clear issues with both the board and the FT. Board. Debt - We have debt which was arisen by the previous board but what I dont understand is how we havent managed to shrug it of with good business management, take leeds they have moved their debt to another company reducing interest payments etc. Cardiff have debt and were more recently then us in trouble but are now able to provide money for their team. Investment - Clearly their is a lack of investment so whoever is in charge of attracting investment is not doing a very good job, if the best we can do is a 250k buy in for a paid chairman position then we have big problems. Martin George was interested but seemingly rejected by the current board?, their is also a stupid rule in place to prevent large investment from an individual and designed for smaller investments of a group of people, for a football club that just doesnt make sense. All the other clubs that have investment it usually comes from 1 person, birmingham is only one that comes to mind that its 2 people. to me that limit appears to be to protect the current board from losing their seats. Football staff - Craig levien was sacked far too late and we was very lucky kelly didnt need any games to turn it around, he did it right from his first kick off and achieved some amazing results more then anyone could expect. If kelly had achieved only mid table form we would have been relegated or close to it. PR - Numerous things wrong here, the stewarding, bad fans arrangement in ground, bad ticket prices. Now the FT I agree with the sentiments they are more a mouthpeice for the board then a fans representative to the board as I have seen limited evidence that they have influenced decisions by the club. Whats very shocking is how they accepted someone paid 250k had no previous experience at a football club and for that was allowed to become a paid chairman yet they allow themselves to require 500k to get a seat on the board. If they cannot even renegotiate that then I dont have much faith in their ability to sway board decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Fynwy Posted 19 May 2006 Share Posted 19 May 2006 Our existing level of membership easily covers costs (as we run a tight ship) therefore additional members fees would speed up our fund raising efforts & enable us to invest our next targeted amount earlier in 2006. This additional money would then be available for the club. But if we paid the money directly to the club without paying the trust costs City would have more money to spend. I would accept increased ticket prices if it led directly to improvements in the performances and playing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Doyle Posted 19 May 2006 Share Posted 19 May 2006 My view on this Barton Fox are Then you take our Board and Executives, lets look at the role of shame: La Manga - refused to accept MA's resignation then refused to release the report in to the investigation, despite saying "there will be no whitewash!" I think MA was let down by senior members of the squad who acted like little kids on a school trip overseas. I think MA actually handled himself greatly and supported his team as much as he could do and I admire him for doing this. I think it took a great deal out of him and again I admire him for falling on his sword when he did and how he did. To think we lose a good manager because of the stupid actions of an privilege few was very disappointing indeed. Pepsi Max Tourne - what a flop, although Mace did fall for that, but no one took responsibility for hiring him. Never seen it but must admit it looked like a real flop. Not sure if there was a financial loss or not but good administrators are very hard to find particularly when clubs are not going so well. Micky Adams - refusing his resignation again. MA lost his appetite but like I say fell on his sword. I still see the potential in the guy and think he will do well at Cov. I admit he lost the interest in LCFC but can understand why they wanted to keep him. Craig Levein - they really got that right didn't they. They got him in, I believe he was the best man for the job but instantly undermined him by bringing in their man to assist him, that doesn't work. Then when it wasn't working the delayed getting shot of him despite TD publicly stating he was happy with CL's long term plan. So how come those that selected him are still here? If it had worked out we would not be talking about this. It didn't work out nor did Peter Ta@#$r, nor did MA in the end. We all knew MON was going to be hard to be replaced but its been harder than anyone has imagined. Lets face it who wants to manage a club deeply in debt, in your words a paper thin squad, struggling, fans on the teams back, sacked two managers in four years and another resigns...RK, who knows, could be are man. The least expected. Lets hope so. What's your prediction on where LCFC will finish next year with RK in charge? Mine is 6 or 7th in the league. One Year Kit Cycle - talk about shafting the very lifeblood of the Club and isn't that against recommendations from the OFT? If it hurts the fans don't do it. I feel it is hurting the fans to much and they should reverse this decision. Ticket prices - fiasco and sheer arrogance. They cant give it away there not in a position to do so. Consistency is the key here and a solid price policy that all understand. Stewarding and the SAG - spineless and disorganised, they let them ride roughshod over the home support. I have to tell you that I think the Stewards are totally over the top based on five games at the start of last season. I wouldn't blame the board for this this I blame the coppers. Its them that would be telling the stewards not to let anything happen because the cops don't want to spend the rest of the day filling out forms on people they have arrested. The steward can dish it out knowing the cops will support them anyway...... Groundshare - public statements then nothing materialises. Tradition. My mates and avid Tigers supporter and hate going to the walkers to watch a rugby game. He recons it stale and lacks atmosphere. He's not alone. It is however a fantastic idea that should be chased up for the benefit of both codes. Fans Surveys - apparently everything is rosy amongst the support - yeah right. Haven't they banned smoking because of this? If so its a fantastic idea that allows non smokers not to be polluted by smokers. Very democratic Birchgate - you know that subject you aren't allowed to talk about but every single Leicester fan knows was true, but you stayed remarkably quiet on. I would put it down to club officers trying to play god. They didn't know that they were actually taking our god on so they lost. I would doubt very much if the board instructed this to happen. They know they need all the support they can get. I bet it was a penny pincher from the HR department and not the board We're in it together - are we bollox, we're in it because of their ineptitude and now they need us big time. I hate to say it but we are all in it together. You (maybe I don't know) and I don't have the cash to stand fort he board so we have to let those that are prepared to put their hard earnt on the line to run the joint. It could change if someone bought the club..... No money reports - ooops the Mirror has started arses twitching at the Club and amongst our current creditors. Not trying to avoid this one but I am not to sure what your referring to. I do however think the club is limited in finances unfortunately Worst season in 15 years - be interested to know how those that oversaw this season are still considered good enough to take this Club forward? Why don't you ask RK this question?. That's what I think anyway. Cricky I am stuffed now its like being on TV. What ever happens Barton Fox we would all like to see the MON days back again. Its not going to happen next season so we need to get behind the club. Maybe the years we had with MON raised the expectation bar to high. Maybe not maybe that where we should be. Peter Ta@#$r did this club damage that has set it back ten years or so. I could understand people saying why did the board at the time let him get away with spending 27 Million on c r a p and taking us from the top of the premiership into the Championship with a famous cup defeat in between. This board are trying to pick up the pieces from that, avoiding receivership, the actions of a privileged few in La Magna and having too many managers in such a short period of time. Lets hope and pray RK can be our saviour. My god I haven't ever written so much. COME ON YOU MIGHTY FOXES MadMick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfox12 Posted 20 May 2006 Share Posted 20 May 2006 My view on this Barton Fox are Then you take our Board and Executives, lets look at the role of shame: La Manga - refused to accept MA's resignation then refused to release the report in to the investigation, despite saying "there will be no whitewash!" I think MA was let down by senior members of the squad who acted like little kids on a school trip overseas. I think MA actually handled himself greatly and supported his team as much as he could do and I admire him for doing this. I think it took a great deal out of him and again I admire him for falling on his sword when he did and how he did. To think we lose a good manager because of the stupid actions of an privilege few was very disappointing indeed. Pepsi Max Tourne - what a flop, although Mace did fall for that, but no one took responsibility for hiring him. Never seen it but must admit it looked like a real flop. Not sure if there was a financial loss or not but good administrators are very hard to find particularly when clubs are not going so well. Micky Adams - refusing his resignation again. MA lost his appetite but like I say fell on his sword. I still see the potential in the guy and think he will do well at Cov. I admit he lost the interest in LCFC but can understand why they wanted to keep him. Craig Levein - they really got that right didn't they. They got him in, I believe he was the best man for the job but instantly undermined him by bringing in their man to assist him, that doesn't work. Then when it wasn't working the delayed getting shot of him despite TD publicly stating he was happy with CL's long term plan. So how come those that selected him are still here? If it had worked out we would not be talking about this. It didn't work out nor did Peter Ta@#$r, nor did MA in the end. We all knew MON was going to be hard to be replaced but its been harder than anyone has imagined. Lets face it who wants to manage a club deeply in debt, in your words a paper thin squad, struggling, fans on the teams back, sacked two managers in four years and another resigns...RK, who knows, could be are man. The least expected. Lets hope so. What's your prediction on where LCFC will finish next year with RK in charge? Mine is 6 or 7th in the league. One Year Kit Cycle - talk about shafting the very lifeblood of the Club and isn't that against recommendations from the OFT? If it hurts the fans don't do it. I feel it is hurting the fans to much and they should reverse this decision. Ticket prices - fiasco and sheer arrogance. They cant give it away there not in a position to do so. Consistency is the key here and a solid price policy that all understand. Stewarding and the SAG - spineless and disorganised, they let them ride roughshod over the home support. I have to tell you that I think the Stewards are totally over the top based on five games at the start of last season. I wouldn't blame the board for this this I blame the coppers. Its them that would be telling the stewards not to let anything happen because the cops don't want to spend the rest of the day filling out forms on people they have arrested. The steward can dish it out knowing the cops will support them anyway...... Groundshare - public statements then nothing materialises. Tradition. My mates and avid Tigers supporter and hate going to the walkers to watch a rugby game. He recons it stale and lacks atmosphere. He's not alone. It is however a fantastic idea that should be chased up for the benefit of both codes. Fans Surveys - apparently everything is rosy amongst the support - yeah right. Haven't they banned smoking because of this? If so its a fantastic idea that allows non smokers not to be polluted by smokers. Very democratic Birchgate - you know that subject you aren't allowed to talk about but every single Leicester fan knows was true, but you stayed remarkably quiet on. I would put it down to club officers trying to play god. They didn't know that they were actually taking our god on so they lost. I would doubt very much if the board instructed this to happen. They know they need all the support they can get. I bet it was a penny pincher from the HR department and not the board We're in it together - are we bollox, we're in it because of their ineptitude and now they need us big time. I hate to say it but we are all in it together. You (maybe I don't know) and I don't have the cash to stand fort he board so we have to let those that are prepared to put their hard earnt on the line to run the joint. It could change if someone bought the club..... No money reports - ooops the Mirror has started arses twitching at the Club and amongst our current creditors. Not trying to avoid this one but I am not to sure what your referring to. I do however think the club is limited in finances unfortunately Worst season in 15 years - be interested to know how those that oversaw this season are still considered good enough to take this Club forward? Why don't you ask RK this question?. That's what I think anyway. Cricky I am stuffed now its like being on TV. What ever happens Barton Fox we would all like to see the MON days back again. Its not going to happen next season so we need to get behind the club. Maybe the years we had with MON raised the expectation bar to high. Maybe not maybe that where we should be. Peter Ta@#$r did this club damage that has set it back ten years or so. I could understand people saying why did the board at the time let him get away with spending 27 Million on c r a p and taking us from the top of the premiership into the Championship with a famous cup defeat in between. This board are trying to pick up the pieces from that, avoiding receivership, the actions of a privileged few in La Magna and having too many managers in such a short period of time. Lets hope and pray RK can be our saviour. My god I haven't ever written so much. COME ON YOU MIGHTY FOXES MadMick Well Put a sensible and balance view of what is going on at the club. I am Foxes Trust member but like most members i've put my £10 to support what they are trying to do and. At the end of the day there are about 3,000 members but there are many more who are not and it is their choice not to be members and i respect their right to give their views on the Club and the Foxes Trust. However if they think they could do a better job of getting the fans views across then do so otherwise stop criticising the Trust and criticise the morons running the club as some on these boards keep telling us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefrizby Posted 21 May 2006 Share Posted 21 May 2006 maybe the trust could do with barton fox becoming a member , i am a member of the trust (another who just sends a tenner each year) and think it would be fantastic to get his points across in the way he has on these boards . maybe just maybe his take no s hit attitude could help the trust/ club move forward Excellent point Sparky, unfortnuantely they just dont have the balls to join /rejoin to then get on the board to try make a difference. p.s There are vacancies you know :-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hullfox Posted 21 May 2006 Share Posted 21 May 2006 Excellent point Sparky, unfortnuantely they just dont have the balls to join /rejoin to then get on the board to try make a difference. p.s There are vacancies you know :-). Thing is, it's so much easier from behind a keyboard too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 21 May 2006 Share Posted 21 May 2006 There are few things more obstructive than cliques so just how easy would it be for such a person to make his/her voice heard in the FT when it is clear various people are against/cautious of his views from the off and will doubtless club together to protect their own beliefs/agenda (whether right or wrong)?. That is just a question. I went in the office to ask a few things and to join once but ended up just taking a form because the room was full of pals who seemed more interested in socialising than promoting the organisation. I concede it was just perhaps just unfortunate but it didn't give the impression of an group that was really determined to sell its message and increase its support. More a group that was complacent and took themselves for granted. The Trust got a lot of Brownie points in my eyes at the time of administration so perhaps I've got the wrong impression in which case I apologise. If not I can understand Barton Fox's reluctance to get involved again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfox12 Posted 21 May 2006 Share Posted 21 May 2006 There are few things more obstructive than cliques so just how easy would it be for such a person to make his/her voice heard in the FT when it is clear various people are against/cautious of his views from the off and will doubtless club together to protect their own beliefs/agenda (whether right or wrong)?. That is just a question. I went in the office to ask a few things and to join once but ended up just taking a form because the room was full of pals who seemed more interested in socialising than promoting the organisation. I concede it was just perhaps just unfortunate but it didn't give the impression of an group that was really determined to sell its message and increase its support. More a group that was complacent and took themselves for granted. The Trust got a lot of Brownie points in my eyes at the time of administration so perhaps I've got the wrong impression in which case I apologise. If not I can understand Barton Fox's reluctance to get involved again. You're Probably right there maybe some of them are in it to just socialise but then again isn't that the same with most societies and groups to meet new people who share the same interests. Also isn't the FT a voluntary run organisation with most if not all members having jobs of there own to do by day so getting involved in all the issues involved in the running the club would take up a lot of time, time which most fans don't have due to work, family and other social commitments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 21 May 2006 Share Posted 21 May 2006 There are few things more obstructive than cliques so just how easy would it be for such a person to make his/her voice heard in the FT when it is clear various people are against/cautious of his views from the off and will doubtless club together to protect their own beliefs/agenda (whether right or wrong)?. That is just a question. I went in the office to ask a few things and to join once but ended up just taking a form because the room was full of pals who seemed more interested in socialising than promoting the organisation. I concede it was just perhaps just unfortunate but it didn't give the impression of an group that was really determined to sell its message and increase its support. More a group that was complacent and took themselves for granted. The Trust got a lot of Brownie points in my eyes at the time of administration so perhaps I've got the wrong impression in which case I apologise. If not I can understand Barton Fox's reluctance to get involved again. We actually prefer the make up of the board to represent all elements of the fan base & enjoy a healthy debate over topics, however once a decision it taken (as with any board of a PLC) we have to then speak as one voice (even if an individual board member doesn't agree on a particular issue). That isn't always easy & in the early days a board member or two departed as they couldn't get their own way, but that is democracy. Sorry when you visited the office that was your experience, it may have been because we had been working on a project for a period in the office & just finished prior to your arrival & caught us at the chit chat phase. We are always happy to answer questions at the office on Saturday home matches between 1.30-2.30pm & obviously sign/re-sign members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 21 May 2006 Share Posted 21 May 2006 You're Probably right there maybe some of them are in it to just socialise but then again isn't that the same with most societies and groups to meet new people who share the same interests. Also isn't the FT a voluntary run organisation with most if not all members having jobs of there own to do by day so getting involved in all the issues involved in the running the club would take up a lot of time, time which most fans don't have due to work, family and other social commitments. Actually we rarely meet socially, but we are voluntary & other than those who have retired, we all do have full time jobs. The time committment from each board member varies dependent on their home/work committments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 21 May 2006 Share Posted 21 May 2006 We actually prefer the make up of the board to represent all elements of the fan base & enjoy a healthy debate over topics, however once a decision it taken (as with any board of a PLC) we have to then speak as one voice (even if an individual board member doesn't agree on a particular issue). That isn't always easy & in the early days a board member or two departed as they couldn't get their own way, but that is democracy. Sorry when you visited the office that was your experience, it may have been because we had been working on a project for a period in the office & just finished prior to your arrival & caught us at the chit chat phase. We are always happy to answer questions at the office on Saturday home matches between 1.30-2.30pm & obviously sign/re-sign members. Thanks for that. I'm sure I'll join and get used to the concept of democracy. It won't be easy cos I've been a long time married! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.