Foxes Trust

[Hullfox]

Having had a small amount of dealings with FT I worry about their capabilities. Hopefully there are more skilled people behind the scenes somewhere.

They obviously think that they are doing a good job but they need to accept that the perception of many is that they are a toothless tiger. My own belief is that they are in need of a change of leadership and direction. There must be so much more that they could do to get more people on board but the people I have met seem to be happy with the status quo that feeds them titbits of privileged information and allows them to namedrop.

This Trust could and should be more powerful in the running of our club they seem to have accepted their lot.

Whilst they have to be applauded for doing what they did whilst others did nothing, they need to take a look at where they are now and where they could have been.

[Fez of Mahrez]

So did you then help give out leaflets the following Saturday, when we were busy asking fans on the way to the game if they would pledge their PLC shares to the Trust, so we could could gather 10% of the shareholding to force an EGM if required?

Then 2 days later, the club went into administration, the open meeting to form the Trust was quickly moved from the HT Orange to the stadium, as interest in the Trust exploded & TPO obviously attended that and the reason for & priority of setting up the Trust totally changed.

And those leading the Trust forgot what sleep was for a few weeks.....

.... remember it well

Yeah I handed out leaflets before a game (along with my mate from Sheffield who has no connections with the club whatsoever, just a footballing good samaritan) on Burnmoor Street.

That seems like aeons ago now.

[davieG]

The topic is still a live discussion, hopefully be able to say more soon

There are bigger shareholders that aren't board members.

Coming from a 'humble' fans background we have to prove more than a successful businessman that we would be a positive contribution in the boardroom, progress is being made (but we can't get away from the fact that originally we had a £500k target set to be given a board role).

Have you read the latest Fox Fanzine Trust article?

There may be justification as to why the Foxes Trust isn't allowed on the board although I can't think of any, number of shares, I think that is a miserable excuse considering we have more than others.

The above given excuse is frankly insulting and demonstrates quite clearly to me that this board has some other underhand reason for keeping the FT out, either that or it has absolutely no respect for fans and clearly sees them as the source of their pay or maintaining the kudos they get from being board members of a nationally recognised business which the do not want threatened.

Humble fans bollocks, without the fans there would be no club, business acumen bollocks, that shouldn't be the FT priority and shouldn't there be enough of that on the board already (actions prove otherwise). The Foxes Trust represent fans, a FT board member does not need to have managed multi-national businesses to have some business acumen and to be a board member. Besides even if they did it could not be guaranteed as annual elections could/would change the FT board.

The FT needs to be able to provide the fans (who are after all the MOST IMPORTANT stakeholders) perspective and influence on decisions BEFORE they are confirmed.

I am therefore and remain a very disillusioned Fan and Foxes Trust member.

[Hullfox]

There may be justification as to why the Foxes Trust isn't allowed on the board although I can't think of any, number of shares, I think that is a miserable excuse considering we have more than others.

The above given excuse is frankly insulting and demonstrates quite clearly to me that this board has some other underhand reason for keeping the FT out, either that or it has absolutely no respect for fans and clearly sees them as the source of their pay or maintaining the kudos they get from being board members of a nationally recognised business which the do not want threatened.

Humble fans bollocks, without the fans there would be no club, business acumen bollocks, that shouldn't be the FT priority and shouldn't there be enough of that on the board already (actions prove otherwise). The Foxes Trust represent fans, a FT board member does not need to have managed multi-national businesses to have some business acumen and to be a board member. Besides even if they did it could not be guaranteed as annual elections could/would change the FT board.

The FT needs to be able to provide the fans (who are after all the MOST IMPORTANT stakeholders) perspective and influence on decisions BEFORE they are confirmed.

I am therefore and remain a very disillusioned Fan and Foxes Trust member.

I think an element of business acumen is required. Not for the purposes of running the business itself but to be able to contribute in a worthwhile manner to a whole host of conversations without being in awe of or walked over by other board members through lack of experience.

Out of interest I would like to know how the FT membership numbers have altered since it's inception and the efforts made to attract new members as in my dealings with them, I have never once been asked to subscribe.

[davieG]

I think an element of business acumen is required. Not for the purposes of running the business itself but to be able to contribute in a worthwhile manner to a whole host of conversations without being in awe of or walked over by other board members through lack of experience.

Out of interest I would like to know how the FT membership numbers have altered since it's inception and the efforts made to attract new members as in my dealings with them, I have never once been asked to subscribe.

I don't disagree that it is desirable, but it is not essential from a Foxes Trust perspective, a grear big dollop of commonsence and an ability to understand, interpet and communicate information is more essential. Besides as I've said it cannot be guaranteed due to the on going election of Foxes Trust Board members.

Who guarantees the business acumen of the present LCFC board members? Possession of sufficient funds to 'buy' a place on the board does not guarantee the posession of sufficient business acumen.

Therefore business acumen should not be a pre-requisite for board membership for the Foxes Trust.

I would accept that that they should represent a minimum number of fans and possess a minimum number of shares, which I believe they already do (shares that is) this 500 minimum is unfair to say the least, plus to say they can't get away from it, suggests a defeatist attitude, the board must have set it therefore the board must have the power to alter it. Which begs the question why haven't they?

[mellowyellow]

Surely most of the criticsm of the Trust is from fans who can't be bothered. That doesn't make them a bunch of a$$holes, surely ?

[Foxes_Trust]

Having had a small amount of dealings with FT I worry about their capabilities. Hopefully there are more skilled people behind the scenes somewhere.

They obviously think that they are doing a good job but they need to accept that the perception of many is that they are a toothless tiger. My own belief is that they are in need of a change of leadership and direction. There must be so much more that they could do to get more people on board but the people I have met seem to be happy with the status quo that feeds them titbits of privileged information and allows them to namedrop.

This Trust could and should be more powerful in the running of our club they seem to have accepted their lot.

Whilst they have to be applauded for doing what they did whilst others did nothing, they need to take a look at where they are now and where they could have been.

Fans often have higher expectations timescale wise than can realistically be achieved, it is a long term game to get where we want to be. If you compare the Foxes Trust progress with other clubs of a similar size, we have made significantly more progress.

No other Trust has all of:

- Observer at all club's board meetings

- Representation on the clubs audit committee

- Ever increasing regular dialogue with the Chairman & Chief Exec

- Access to all the Directors at every home game

- Involvement in the Fans Forum/Consultative Committee

The latest Supporters Direct magazine highlights the Foxes Trust as a good example of gaining influence at a club by working with those running it (and airing criticisms/praise privately, rather than via a media campaign)

Having said all that, we would always welcome new people on to the FT board from our membership, currently the positions covering Fund Raising, Events & Press Officer are all available.

Trust Board meetings have periodic reviews of where we are & where we are going, the last review was in the summer, but we always welcome feedback, send your comments to [email protected]

[The People's Hero]

I'd start by saying I am a fully paid up FT member and at times, leafleteer.

I share earlier echoed sentiments that the FT leadership is all wrong. FT owns shares but is powerless, rudderless and pointless at the moment. I think actually 'being' the FT has gone to the heads of some involved. It needs to be lead by someone who basically just fulfils the criteria of not being an ar se licking idiot.

[Daggers]

Who guarantees the business acumen of the present LCFC board members? Possession of sufficient funds to 'buy' a place on the board does not guarantee the posession of sufficient business acumen.

Therefore business acumen should not be a pre-requisite for board membership for the Foxes Trust.

Absolutley!

Michael Knighton is the first example of someone that springs to mind of someone with "money" and "experience"

No other Trust has all of:

- Observer at all club's board meetings

- Representation on the clubs audit committee

- Ever increasing regular dialogue with the Chairman & Chief Exec

- Access to all the Directors at every home game

- Involvement in the Fans Forum/Consultative Committee

This is only of any use if there is a frequent, clear feedback to the membership and the fanbase at large.

This does not happen to the level that breeds trust in the activities of the trust at this present moment in time. Moreover, I detect a perception that those that do have "access to all of the directors at every home game" have had their heads turned in the process...

The latest Supporters Direct magazine highlights the Foxes Trust as a good example of gaining influence at a club by working with those running it (and airing criticisms/praise privately, rather than via a media campaign)

The fact that I am posing the question What is "The latest Supporters Direct magazine" ? sums up one of the other problems.

[Foxes_Trust]

I think an element of business acumen is required. Not for the purposes of running the business itself but to be able to contribute in a worthwhile manner to a whole host of conversations without being in awe of or walked over by other board members through lack of experience.

Out of interest I would like to know how the FT membership numbers have altered since it's inception and the efforts made to attract new members as in my dealings with them, I have never once been asked to subscribe.

We would agree any Trust representative would have to be capable of holding their own in the board room & not be afraid of getting their views across, several of the existing FT board + the Observer have these skills.

Members numbers wise, at its peak we had around 3,200 (it is fairly consistent for Trust's formed in a crisis to lose 50% of it's membership in year two when the crisis has passed).

Currently we are slighly below 1,000 members - the renewal level showed few drop outs last year.

Let's address the last point, please join us now here http://www.foxestrust.com/join/joinwp.htm

Out of interest how would you have liked us to approach you then Hullfox, we are really interested to know suggested ways of attracting sign ups.

We have identifed the need to do more & this season have already ran a recruitment session in the 1884 bar prior to a game, which resulted in some sign ups

[The People's Hero]

Members numbers wise, at its peak we had around 3,200 (it is fairly consistent for Trust's formed in a crisis to lose 50% of it's membership in year two when the crisis has passed).

Currently we are slighly below 1,000 members - the renewal level showed few drop outs last year.

Let's address the last point, please join us now here http://www.foxestrust.com/join/joinwp.htm

Out of interest how would you have liked us to approach you then Hullfox, we are really interested to know suggested ways of attracting sign ups.

We have identifed the need to do more & this season have already ran a recruitment session in the 1884 bar prior to a game, which resulted in some sign ups

What a kop out.

Why not answer the question asked?

You'd get more sign ups if you convinced people you had real policies independently of the club. Anything you claim to have had a hand in seems unbelievably trivial, like pre-match music or what sauce they put on the burgers.

Grow up and if you want people to support you - give them something to support. At the moment you are wet, rudderless and pathetic.

[Foxes_Trust]

I'd start by saying I am a fully paid up FT member and at times, leafleteer.

I share earlier echoed sentiments that the FT leadership is all wrong. FT owns shares but is powerless, rudderless and pointless at the moment. I think actually 'being' the FT has gone to the heads of some involved. It needs to be lead by someone who basically just fulfils the criteria of not being an ar se licking idiot.

Look TPO that simply isn't true, just because we put criticisms over privately rather than having a slagging match in the press doesn't mean we aren't critical & speak passionately to force change.

Tell us how you would handle it

Or better still, as an FT member, why don't you fill one of the 3 vacant FT board roles & seek to influence the future direction in a positive way, rather than throw around insults on message boards

[The People's Hero]

Because my time is taken with other things.

I take criticism where deserved at work. I expect those in FT positions to do the same

[Daggers]

What a kop out.

Why not answer the question asked?

You'd get more sign ups if you convinced people you had real policies independently of the club. Anything you claim to have had a hand in seems unbelievably trivial, like pre-match music or what sauce they put on the burgers.

Grow up and if you want people to support you - give them something to support. At the moment you are wet, rudderless and pathetic.

My perspective is either piss or get off the potty. It seems as though the FT are happy to let things go on as they are...I perceive (rightly or wrongly) an organisation that currently represents less than 10% if City fans. There exists a number of problems, the not least of which is a poor level of communication.

The responsibility for communication (according to the FT website) resides with the Chairman.

If my perceptions are incorrect then one has to ask - why do I have them? The answer comes down to either poor communications or poor direction.

[The People's Hero]

My perspective is either piss or get off the potty. It seems as though the FT are happy to let things go on as they are...I perceive (rightly or wrongly) an organisation that currently represents less than 10% if City fans. There exists a number of problems, the not least of which is a poor level of communication.

The responsibility for communication (according to the FT website) resides with the Chairman.

If my perceptions are incorrect then one has to ask - why do I have them? The answer comes down to either piss poor communications or piss poor direction.

I'd suggest both.

Right now, they're seen my both club/board and fans as a joke... to change that, they have to toughen up, smarten up and power up.

Pathetic.

[Foxes_Trust]

This is only of any use if there is a frequent, clear feedback to the membership and the fanbase at large.

This does not happen to the level that breeds trust in the activities of the trust at this present moment in time. Moreover, I detect a perception that those that do have "access to all of the directors at every home game" have had their heads turned in the process...

The fact that I am posing the question What is "The latest Supporters Direct magazine" ? sums up one of the other problems.

A 12 page newsletter has just come off the print press, so will be sent to members soon, while we are trying to give more access to those at the club via our website, such as the Q & A with the Chairman, the Club Chaplain interview and there will be further articles on the heads of the Academy (John Rudkin) & FITC (Craig White).

To make it clear, a rota of Trust board members means that normally a single board member is in the Directors Box every 4th game, the other 3 they can be found in their own seat swearing at the ref as normal.

Supporters Direct, as the umbrella organisation for all Trusts, our main body, where we can seek advice & share experiences. The latest magazine can be downloaded here http://www.supporters-direct.org/docs/Issue23.pdf see page 4 for the reference to the FT or page 5 of the previous edition http://www.supporters-direct.org/docs/Issue22.pdf

[Foxes_Trust]

Because my time is taken with other things.

I take criticism where deserved at work. I expect those in FT positions to do the same

Like criticising on message boards which you seem to have plenty of time for (& I don't just mean the FT).

Most of the board's work can be performed via e-mail.

We do take constructive criticism, "not being an ar se licking idiot" does not come under that catagory

[Foxes_Trust]

My perspective is either piss or get off the potty. It seems as though the FT are happy to let things go on as they are...I perceive (rightly or wrongly) an organisation that currently represents less than 10% if City fans. There exists a number of problems, the not least of which is a poor level of communication.

The responsibility for communication (according to the FT website) resides with the Chairman.

If my perceptions are incorrect then one has to ask - why do I have them? The answer comes down to either piss poor communications or piss poor direction.

The direction of the Trust is set by the board, not one person, the organisation (like all Trusts) is not ran autocratically.

Communication resides with the chairman since we currently lack a press officer, however articles are normally written by one board member & then edited by another.

Message boards are of a more instant nature and we aim to move towards writing considered pieces on the website than reactionary posts, however we don't want to duck responding to questions asked.

How would you like to see the communication methods change Disco Bob?

[Hullfox]

Members numbers wise, at its peak we had around 3,200 (it is fairly consistent for Trust's formed in a crisis to lose 50% of it's membership in year two when the crisis has passed).

Currently we are slighly below 1,000 members - the renewal level showed few drop outs last year.

Let's address the last point, please join us now here http://www.foxestrust.com/join/joinwp.htm

Out of interest how would you have liked us to approach you then Hullfox, we are really interested to know suggested ways of attracting sign ups.

We have identifed the need to do more & this season have already ran a recruitment session in the 1884 bar prior to a game, which resulted in some sign ups

The nail has been hit on the head.

Why would the board take you seriously when your membership has dropped by maybe as much as 70%? You quite clearly no longer represent the fans.

For the record, I think you should have been approaching people via season ticket renewals, membership renewals, at the games in person, at the games at half time, you should set up an annual direct debiting system so people don't have to renew, you could leave leaflets on seats encouraging people to join but it seems to me that you have allowed the organisation to be marginalised.

With the same people at the helm it seems to me that the present course will remain unaltered.

Foxes Trust R.I.P

[Daggers]

How would you like to see the communication methods change Disco Bob?

The interaction between Trust and Board is closed; a far greater level of feedback to the membership should exist about meetings and discussions; without such feedback the obvious belief is that the Trust are acting in cahoots with the board. Personally, I do not believe the Trust acts as openly as it should which leads to to think that it does not represent members interests.

The recent series of transcripts of interviews relayed here were interesting, but (again in my opinion) sadly lacking in any real depth. For me, they represented the kind of rigorous interrogation similar to that which players undergo in the program restaurant interview.

I see the Trust as a body the calls the Board to account for its actions and inactions and, quite frankly, I do not believe I am seeing this at all. I read comments on this forum that indicate an unwillingness to be more candid - because your Boardroom conversations are of a sensitive nature. I do not accept that this is good enough.

I think it is possible to make the Trust website contain more information, members could receive monthly emailshots and links to such articles could be placed here.

I think that unless you open yourselves up to more detailed scrutiny you will continue to find that the majority of Foxes fans are content to throw brickbats, and until there is a shift in communication emphasis there will be a continued perception that the Trust works for the Board, rather than with it.

[Manwell Pablo]

* checks watch *

I wouldn't expect them online till gone 11.

[Thracian]

The interaction between Trust and Board is closed; a far greater level of feedback to the membership should exist about meetings and discussions; without such feedback the obvious belief is that the Trust are acting in cahoots with the board. Personally, I do not believe the Trust acts as openly as it should which leads to to think that it does not represent members interests.

The recent series of transcripts of interviews relayed here were interesting, but (again in my opinion) sadly lacking in any real depth. For me, they represented the kind of rigorous interrogation similar to that which players undergo in the program restaurant interview.

I see the Trust as a body the calls the Board to account for its actions and inactions and, quite frankly, I do not believe I am seeing this at all. I read comments on this forum that indicate an unwillingness to be more candid - because your Boardroom conversations are of a sensitive nature. I do not accept that this is good enough.

I think it is possible to make the Trust website contain more information, members could receive monthly emailshots and links to such articles could be placed here.

I think that unless you open yourselves up to more detailed scrutiny you will continue to find that the majority of Foxes fans are content to throw brickbats, and until there is a shift in communication emphasis there will be a continued perception that the Trust works for the Board, rather than with it.

If the Trust supposedly calls the board to account why has has sod all said about the Reserves cos it's been some days since the subject was raised.

[Wycombe Fox]

I haven't spoken about the Foxes Trust before and don't know a great deal about it (maybe that's the problem!) so please bear with me and correct me if I'm wrong.

I assume that the FT is supposed to reflect the views of the fans, have a seat on the board and represent us in board meetings. Therefore the fewer members the FT has, the lesser the credibility of the FT's representations to the Board.

Is the problem with the way the FT is run or is everyone sceptical about their credibilty within the Board?

How many of us commenting on all threads are members of the FT?

It's like the 'Chicken and the Egg'. Do you wait and see whether the FT are effective or not before you join or will they be more effective if you join anyway.

It seems crazy to me that there are less than 1000 members of a group who, assuming my second paragraph is correct, represent us in Board meetings; surely the more members, the more the Board have to listen to the fans.

Maybe I'm just niaive (spelling?)

Why are the FT only represented once in every four games in the Director's Box? That sounds like 'we'll let them sit with us once in a while just to keep them happy'

[Daggers]

How many of us commenting on all threads are members of the FT?

I am a member of the Trust because I believe in the potential of Trusts to help put real fans back into the mindset of those that own football.

That said, I have a number of questions about our Trust...I'm not knocking anyone.

And here comes the 'but'...

But, I think that the Trust can communicate better because at present there is a perception about its activities that may well not be true...but exist all the same.

[The People's Hero]

Like criticising on message boards which you seem to have plenty of time for (& I don't just mean the FT).

Most of the board's work can be performed via e-mail.

We do take constructive criticism, "not being an ar se licking idiot" does not come under that catagory

So tell me... is it the policy of the Foxes Trust as an organisation to criticise those who support the club and have donated to the trust, or was it a lack of professionalism from an 'officer' or mere 'member' of the trust, posting under the Foxes Trust guise?

Either way - you're not going to gain many new members through your 'holier than thou' attitude.