Foxes_Trust Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 Football is a business, not a hobby. If we are to be taken seriously as a club, and if we show any ambition at all, we need to be run by professionals who know what they're talking about. There are some mis-conceptions on Trust ran clubs. Trust's can own a football club & then appoint a Chief Exec to do the day to day running of the club. Brentford are an interesting case, where all the financial control is with the Trust, so the Chief Exec can request a level of expenditure, but the Trust actually releases the purse strings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 But there are several other trust-owned clubs in the region - Northampton and Chesterfield to name but two - who operate far more successfully. I could quote the example of Peterborough - who have consistently underachieved under a succession a megalomaniacs - as an illustration of the failing of clubs run under more conventional, traditional methods. Because of their limited fan base, R&D were probably punching above their weight during the time that sugar daddy Max Griggs (of Dr Martens fame) was running them. I'll monitor their progress in the Conference with interest - not least because their manager Paul Hart espoused the same attacking principles as you so often do (though they evidently didn't serve him too well at Forest). At least with our trust running the club the board members would be elected on the principle of their knowledge and expertise rather than the depth of their pockets, as is the case now. They would also be democratically accountable and as they would have fixed periods of office, they would be forced to operate with full integrity and transparency. They would also maintain the financial discipline that we never had during the plc days. Never again would a manager be given millions to spend which the club did not have, as Taylor was. Although the manager would retain day-to-day charge of playing matters (as happens at existing trust-run clubs), he would be required to explain his footballing beliefs and philosophies. If these didn't correspond with the prevailing mood among fans, he too could be replaced. However, I'm not convinced that the gung-ho, all-out attack, cull all players over 23 approach would find that many takers among a wider audience.. A Utopian ideal? Perhaps. But it's a model which seems to work quite well at the Nou Camp.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 I actually think the Foxes Trust is doing a decent job. It's a shame it doesn't have more members, but that's probably partly due to the vitriolic, spiteful and unjustified abuse it gets on here and other forums. I look forward to the time when it's grown sufficiently to take over control of the club. It's happened at a few league clubs, including local ones, so there's no reason it couldn't happen here! Many Trust's do have the aspiration to own & run the club. Our published aims do not state this & the current Foxes Trust board does not have this in mind as a longer term aim either. We do want a full non-exec board role & an ever growing influence through time, but not to take over the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 Not everyone has the time, can get there. Some feel that by asking a question, they'll just be ignored anyway, like when i asked you, Could you explain to me what it is about LCFC plc that you love so much?, you did the same thing. So taking attendances this season, you are saying out of say 17,000 LCFC fans, 16,960 of them are unable to make it. Agreed some & particularly Foxiles, but apathy accounts for a good number as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 They wont even tell us how many members they speak on behalf of. Probably an embarrassing amount... With a rolling 12 month membership it can never be exact, but we have around 900-1000 members currently, which is larger than any other LCFC fans organisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 With a rolling 12 month membership it can never be exact, but we have around 900 members currently, which is larger than any other LCFC fans organisation. Still well below the numbers who subscribe to this forum and Talking Balls though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 When I went to join I was totally ignored while the office representatives enjoyed a prolonged chinwag. We have previously apologised for that & explained we had just finished an exercise of putting newsletters inside envelopes for the previous hour & we having a chat having finished. I've no idea whether the Rushden folk had a football vision but can you imagine some (and I only say some) of our FT members on here having a football input? Dour wouldn't be a kind enough word for it. My perception is something like this: "Don't you understand. We daren't attack. We have to be careful. We have to be seen to be protecting the club. Better 0-0 or 1-0 than risking defeat. And we could certainly never justify changing a winning team. Our members just wouldn't approve." "It's alright in parks football. But attacking leaves you wide open ... . It's up to the appointed manager to decide tactics, not a club's board, otherwise why bother with a manager. "If you want it you'll have to get a petition up and put it to the vote. Do that and if the members say yes the committee will consider it..." "When? When we've finished our other discussions ... and you know how long they can be! Someone convince me I'm wrong. I'd be a lot happier on the subject if they would. Most decisions by the Foxes Trust are made by the Trust board, we consult with members where practical or if we feel the membership could be evenly split & therefore need to gather current thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 With a rolling 12 month membership it can never be exact, but we have around 900 members currently, which is larger than any other LCFC fans organisation. You're a worthless, poorly run organisation that will never achieve it's goals. You've done nothing of note since 2004. As a certain Ric Flair pointed out, you struggle to make a fart herd in the board room. Whether that is down to the fans of this club or yourselves is a different matter, but maybe if you had actually done something of note since raising a very commendable amount of money for the club whilst in administration you might have more members.... and thus more of a say in what goes on at the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 Still well below the numbers who subscribe to this forum and Talking Balls though... Subscribed numbers are misleading though, as it includes fans of other clubs who join to discuss a forthcoming fixture, if you look at the number of posts for each user, then you would see the number of active posters on each forum is less than the Trust membership. You can't combine forum numbers, as posters have probably registered with both sites. Then there are the multiple identity posters, one person, eight user names, not sure how much that happens on here or TB, but it's rife on the Fox Fanzine rivals site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oundlefox Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 I just think that a lot of people are seriously sceptical about the level of influence the Trust has now and possibly in the future. Apathy has gripped the club lately as is evident in the attendances so far this season. Unless we play a Midlands derby who bring a decent number of away fans, it seems we'll struggle to get over 20,000. Yet if we were doing well like in the past you could easily stick 10-15,000 fans on that figure. So if people aren't even bothering to turn up to the watch the matches, they are hardly likely to be concerned with the Trust increasing its influence and impact on the running of the club. Just my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 24 August 2006 Author Share Posted 24 August 2006 But there are several other trust-owned clubs in the region - Northampton and Chesterfield to name but two - who operate far more successfully. I could quote the example of Peterborough - who have consistently underachieved under a succession a megalomaniacs - as an illustration of the failing of clubs run under more conventional, traditional methods. Because of their limited fan base, R&D were probably punching above their weight during the time that sugar daddy Max Griggs (of Dr Martens fame) was running them. I'll monitor their progress in the Conference with interest - not least because their manager Paul Hart espoused the same attacking principles as you so often do (though they evidently didn't serve him too well at Forest). At least with our trust running the club the board members would be elected on the principle of their knowledge and expertise rather than the depth of their pockets, as is the case now. They would also be democratically accountable and as they would have fixed periods of office, they would be forced to operate with full integrity and transparency. They would also maintain the financial discipline that we never had during the plc days. Never again would a manager be given millions to spend which the club did not have, as Taylor was. Although the manager would retain day-to-day charge of playing matters (as happens at existing trust-run clubs), he would be required to explain his footballing beliefs and philosophies. If these didn't correspond with the prevailing mood among fans, he too could be replaced. However, I'm not convinced that the gung-ho, all-out attack, cull all players over 23 approach would find that many takers among a wider audience.. A Utopian ideal? Perhaps. But it's a model which seems to work quite well at the Nou Camp.. I found all you say rational and interesting until the paragraph which suggests I would cull all players over 23. When did I ever say or imply that? Yes, I favour a young team generally. But I am not and never will be against having good older players whose presence is of genuine benefit to the team and doesn't act as a brake. Nor would I pick a young player, on age grounds or any other grounds, if he wasn't at least as good as the older player he was replacing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 You're a worthless, poorly run organisation that will never achieve it's goals. You've done nothing of note since 2004. As a certain Ric Flair pointed out, you struggle to make a fart herd in the board room. Whether that is down to the fans of this club or yourselves is a different matter, but maybe if you had actually done something of note since raising a very commendable amount of money for the club whilst in administration you might have more members.... and thus more of a say in what goes on at the club Not sure what you expect us to achieve - perhaps you could post a few things M_P & we can respond, but additional to our initial investment we have - made 2 further investments meaning total shares currently £151k, 13th largest shareholder in the club - having initially not been told about the 1 year kit deal, persuaded the club to reverse it's original agreement and make the away and 3rd kit on a 2 year cycle (wait for news on the home kit) - reacted quickly after the Cov home game last year and persuaded the club to hold an open meeting about the stewarding with all the relevant parties and as a result a relaxation of attitude from the stewards followed. - ensured an appeals process was in place if a fan felt a ban from the stadium was unjustified, 1st fan through this process had their ban lifted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 I just think that a lot of people are seriously sceptical about the level of influence the Trust has now and possibly in the future. Apathy has gripped the club lately as is evident in the attendances so far this season. Unless we play a Midlands derby who bring a decent number of away fans, it seems we'll struggle to get over 20,000. Yet if we were doing well like in the past you could easily stick 10-15,000 fans on that figure. So if people aren't even bothering to turn up to the watch the matches, they are hardly likely to be concerned with the Trust increasing its influence and impact on the running of the club. Just my humble opinion. we have 13,000 season ticket holders, if the FT had anything about it it would have more then less 10% of those as members. I would be one for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 I just think that a lot of people are seriously sceptical about the level of influence the Trust has now and possibly in the future. Apathy has gripped the club lately as is evident in the attendances so far this season. Unless we play a Midlands derby who bring a decent number of away fans, it seems we'll struggle to get over 20,000. Yet if we were doing well like in the past you could easily stick 10-15,000 fans on that figure. So if people aren't even bothering to turn up to the watch the matches, they are hardly likely to be concerned with the Trust increasing its influence and impact on the running of the club. Just my humble opinion. The current attendance still gives us plenty of opportunity to increase our membership & dis satisfaction with the club normally results in growth of fans organisations. Certainly the Rams Trust experienced this last year & have their largest membership to date this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 we have 13,000 season ticket holders, if the FT had anything about it it would have more then less 1% of those as members. I would be one for a start. So what could we do that would make you join the Trust then M_P? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 Not sure what you expect us to achieve - perhaps you could post a few things M_P & we can respond, but additional to our initial investment we have - made 2 further investments meaning total shares currently £151k, 13th largest shareholder in the club - having initially not been told about the 1 year kit deal, persuaded the club to reverse it's original agreement and make the away and 3rd kit on a 2 year cycle (wait for news on the home kit) - reacted quickly after the Cov home game last year and persuaded the club to hold an open meeting about the stewarding with all the relevant parties and as a result a relaxation of attitude from the stewards followed. - ensured an appeals process was in place if a fan felt a ban from the stadium was unjustified, 1st fan through this process had their ban lifted Well for a start off, the highlighted bit makes it Manwell Pablo 1 Ultra 0 so well done you've actually made a differnce to me. try holding a meeting about Tim Davis's wages. try and stop the club wasting money on useless gimicks. try ane explain to me why Sunderland have lost interest in a player that is surplus to requirements and could of fetched this club 250 thousand pounds. Prefferable try and stop this happening in the future. try and attempt the club to think of some sort of long term strategy finically wise, not nessacerily even a 3 year plan ala cov, but, possibly even a 10 year plan so we can save some money and actually have a impact on this division. try not charging ten pounds a year to join a organsation which has managed to ban smoking, stop people getting thrown our and banned for uttering shit under their breath, or having to shell out for a new FKING home kit every year, AKA a luxery most other football suppourters enjoy without the precence or oragansations such as yourselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 The current attendance still gives us plenty of opportunity to increase our membership & dis satisfaction with the club normally results in growth of fans organisations. Certainly the Rams Trust experienced this last year & have their largest membership to date this year. Out of interest, what is their membership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Posted 24 August 2006 Share Posted 24 August 2006 Well for a start off, the highlighted bit makes it Manwell Pablo 1 Ultra 0 so well done you've actually made a differnce to me. Why??? I was AT that meeting, were you? How was the decision a victory over me? try holding a meeting about Tim Davis's wages. What's the point? It's the board's decision.. try and stop the club wasting money on useless gimicks. Such as? try ane explain to me why Sunderland have lost interest in a player that is surplus to requirements and could of fetched this club 250 thousand pounds. Prefferable try and stop this happening in the future. Is Maybury really surplus to requirements? Only Rob Kelly knows for sure. Shouldn't he be the one to decide who is and isn't transferred? try not charging ten pounds a year to join a organsation which has managed to ban smoking, stop people getting thrown our and banned for uttering shit under their breath, or having to shell out for a new FKING home kit every year, AKA a luxery most other football suppourters enjoy without the precence or oragansations such as yourselves The club banned smoking following a democratic vote from ALL fans, not the Trust. The club also relaxed the stewarding following pressure from the Trust and others. The 1-year kit is a pain but we've had it before without the level of whingeing we're getting now. Oh, and it's about time you learned to read and write. Literacy is a core skill in the real world. Every spelling and grammatical mistake you make undermines your arguments completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 25 August 2006 Share Posted 25 August 2006 Like we are now? Or have been in the past? Will you stop twisting statements to suit your means? I have never stated that we are or were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 25 August 2006 Share Posted 25 August 2006 Why??? I was AT that meeting, were you? How was the decision a victory over me? What's the point? It's the board's decision.. Such as? Is Maybury really surplus to requirements? Only Rob Kelly knows for sure. Shouldn't he be the one to decide who is and isn't transferred? The club banned smoking following a democratic vote from ALL fans, not the Trust. The club also relaxed the stewarding following pressure from the Trust and others. The 1-year kit is a pain but we've had it before without the level of whingeing we're getting now. Oh, and it's about time you learned to read and write. Literacy is a core skill in the real world. Every spelling and grammatical mistake you make undermines your arguments completely. Well I told you the meeting was called specially by the board to discuss stewarding, and I do recall you saying it was just an average Open Meeting. The Foxes Trust statement backs up my argument, and it really doesn't matter whether you attended the meeting or not. As I have said before attending an Open Meeting doesn't make you great. To make the board think about reducing it? last time I checked the Foxes Trust were on the board believe it or not. I think we all know he's surplus to requirements, which is why we agreed to sell him, however it took so long to come to this decision that Sunderland lost interest. This really is not acceptable in my view. You keep saying it's the boards’ decision. You think I don't know that? The idea of having an active useful supporters trust is to get our voice over to the board and get them to listen to us. Not sit there like lemons and achieve very little. As I said before are the Foxes Trust not on the board? It's nice to see you have decided to have a swipe at my writing, as it's normally something people on here do when they are losing argument with me. I've explained why my spelling and grammar aren't particularly good on this board and if your to ignorant to read it the first time I have no intention of repeating it for you. I have no idea why you so keen to defend everything to do with the club, I noticed you didn’t even argue with one of the points so you must of thought it held some merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swedging Posted 25 August 2006 Share Posted 25 August 2006 last time I checked the Foxes Talk were on the board believe it or not. Employ a better factchecker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 25 August 2006 Share Posted 25 August 2006 Employ a better factchecker. They at least have a representive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted 25 August 2006 Share Posted 25 August 2006 They at least have a representive. i think he means u got the name wrong foxes trust yes, this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 25 August 2006 Share Posted 25 August 2006 i think he means u got the name wrong foxes trust yes, this forum? only just noticed that. Think I need to concentrate a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamesmaster Posted 25 August 2006 Share Posted 25 August 2006 So taking attendances this season, you are saying out of say 17,000 LCFC fans, 16,960 of them are unable to make it. Agreed some & particularly Foxiles, but apathy accounts for a good number as well you still didnt answer the question "Could you explain to me what it is about LCFC plc that you love so much?" avoid it this time and you get to keep the match ball oops, he wont answer it now Approximately 16,960 people voted for a non smoking stadium, but people still smoke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.