Chrysalis Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 We can't state anything about the alternatives at this time. Have you gone to your members for a vote on how you should stand? You are centianly not been unbbiased and choose to make comments reffering to milan but not the alternative bid.
teblin Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 Like it or not, football is all about money. There doesn't seem to be a leics fan willing to stump up the cash. So lets get behind who ever does!
Louise Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 Not sure why Milan's 'ultimatum' has come up again, as we've all read/heard the interview which those comments came from and discovered that it was just RL stirring up trouble.
fantastic_mr_fox Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 please ignore the trust - they hold very little sway over things and they are merely fighing for their little piece of power and half-time vol-eu-ants and free padded seats. they do not represent the thoughts and wishes of the majority of the fans and have served their purpose. Cliff Ginetta is more of a true representative of the fans. I look forward to Milan taking over and finally we can get rid of these apologists. Bring on the revolution. Do not TRUST the Trust.
Daggers Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 I really don't think they should be posting on the websites at all at this time, if they have something that has any substance to it, nothing yet it seems then that should be communicated directly to members only or if for the general non-member posted on their site. The professional stance they are taking is diminished by this tittle tattle approach. If they feel, as a matter of prinicipal they need to let something go public in the best interest of the fans and aren't in a position to do so, I would, somewhat reluctantly suggest they do what MM and the shareholders are doing and leak it. Well said Davie, as a paid up Trust member I too dislike this method of communication. Mandy is quoted as saying you have a week to make your minds up. By a totally unreliable media source, no sources quoted. Why do you persist in doing this Ultra? It lends nothing to an argument if it is unsubstantiated. Whereas YOU represent, er... Disco Bob and that's it. Where have I said any different? What's your point? As a Trust member I am perfectly entitled to criticise the Trust if I so choose. The thing is, I demand factual content from them if they are making a statement whereas you prefer to use and listen to rumour. You are a fool Ultra, you oppose something purely from an emotive stance without anything to back it up. Your trite comment means to infer that I am not allowed to question anything they say - wonderful democracy that is. There again it suits you to have them dribbling inferences that all is not as it should be with the bid - it suits your agenda. At this moment in time ONLY board members and MM's team are aware of the full details of the bid. You don't have a clue what it involves, nor do I ~ I am holding judgement until I have those facts, you carry on shooting from the hip.
Thracian Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 No as a shareholder we will receive information not made generally available & that is one of the reasons the Trust exists, so fans are represented & can express their views when key decisions are being taken. We could be facing a key shareholders meeting & we will not be shy in asking questions & trying to influence the shareholders with our comments, that is what we are elected to do. We know it's frustrating not knowing, but you really have to back us on this one, our prime concern is how fans will be affected & the long term future of the club & that is always in mind when we speak. -=========================== Not wishing to be especially critical but the rub here is that while the Trust can represent some of the fans when decisions are taken they seem to be effectively prevented by "private and confidential" protocol from actually discussing important issues before they are voted on, so bad decisions can still be made without the Trust being within their rights to say anything I'm not blaming the FT. A lot of our supposed democracy works, or doesn't work, like this. But to some extent they're snookered. My own view is that Private and Confidential should be the exception rather than the rule and far too much is hidden from view, by Governments, by councils, by public companies, by public bodies and by football clubs, because of their special relationship and reliance on the public. I suppose I've never been a trusting individual and detest the concept of deception. In other words, if people don't feel they can argue their case honestly in public, and are not then obliged to stand by any statements of intent made in that argument, the probability is their case is flawed or there's a hidden agenda.
Daggers Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 My source is a shareholder. He hasnt told me a lot but bits and peices. Only board members have the details of the bid though, is he on the board?
Wezleylowski Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 This is all abit complicated for me as i am just a pup so ill stay out of this matter.
davieG Posted 4 November 2006 Author Posted 4 November 2006 The only information of any value in the public domain is that MM has put in an undisclosed bid for LCFC, which he believes is a fair offer - any reference to £25m is just unsubstantiated newspaper talk LCFC have received that bid and have/are considering it with other "options available to the club in terms of generating new investment to fund the club's ambitions" - any indication of what those options might be are based solely on rumours. LCFC have agreed to meet MM. The only indication we have of what the motives of the board/shareholders are is that they will do what is best for LCFC and in some 'quoted' cases to get their investment back. In essence that's all we know; which in terms of making a judgement on the best way of taking this football club forward is totally insufficient. I therefore remain firmly on the fence as to which direction I would like to see the club go.
Babylon Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 I therefore remain firmly on the fence as to which direction I would like to see the club go. Ditto!!!
Fez of Mahrez Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 Booooring! Me too really, as you can tell from my sustenance of the dearly departed Mandaric thread, I'm just in it for shits and giggles. Mainly giggles.
Louise Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 RL aren't helping matters with announcing (just now) that MM's bid is 25m.
hebangsthedrums Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 As a paid up memeber of the Foxes Trust I trust them to let me know when they have someting they can and are able to communicate. However I'd have prefer it if the current communicating they are doing on this forum, although it tells us pretty much sod all was put in an email and sent to me. I really don't think they should be posting on the websites at all at this time, if they have something that has any substance to it, nothing yet it seems then that should be communicated directly to members only or if for the general non-member posted on their site. The professional stance they are taking is diminished by this tittle tattle approach. If they feel, as a matter of prinicipal they need to let something go public in the best interest of the fans and aren't in a position to do so, I would, somewhat reluctantly suggest they do what MM and the shareholders are doing and leak it. I think the whole reason for the tittle tattle approach and a lot ofg the way the trust functions is that the feeling of being in th know above everyone else, and making sure everyone else knows they are in the know is the motivation. Like you say they should either shut up or spill, not just post here andf there making sure everyone is aware they are privy to important info (which we can never verify as they will not disclose this 'information'). Foxes Trust? The way it seems to be run = Foxes farce
Mort Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 I dont think this has been posted but this article says the shareholders are likely to accept the bid. http://www.thebluearmy.co.uk/details.asp?b...6269754|p|536|0 Cautious backing for Mandaric's takeover By Ian Griffin Shareholders today said they were likely to back Milan Mandaric's £25million bid to buy Leicester City. Investors said they would be willing to sell their stake to the multi-millionaire businessman if it was for the good of the club. City's board, which met yesterday to discuss Mandaric's offer, are due to meet the Serbian-American to talk over the bid. The 38 shareholders not on the board have not yet been given details of the bid, but are due to be briefed shortly. Peter Hockenhull, of Great Glen, who owns 125,000 shares, said: "I think Mandaric can only be positive for the club. "Whether he's here for five years or 10 years, he will leave it in a much more positive position. He certainly left Portsmouth in a stronger position. "As far as I'm concerned, I will go with whatever's right for the club and the supporters. If that means me relinquishing my shares, I would do that." Trevor Bennett, of Newtown Linford, the club's fourth-biggest shareholder with 350,000 shares, would not be drawn on Mandaric's bid, but said: "It's likely I'd go with the board's recommendation. But I may change my mind if I thought it was not in the interests of the club." Peter Freer, of Rothley, who owns 50,000 shares, said: "You always have to be careful with these sorts of bids. "We don't want someone to be here today and gone tomorrow. But I'm sure that most supporters and shareholders, when they have received the details, will probably say the bid is favourable." Walter McRobie, of Cropston, who also owns 50,000 shares, said: "At this stage, I would be for it. But if there's the likelihood of a better bid with less strings attached than there's likely to be with Mandaric, that too may be worth looking at. "I'd be happy to sell my shares at the figure I paid for them - £50,000." Alison Nettleton, of Oadby, owns 25,000 shares and her father William is a director of the club's joint largest shareholder, Wigston property business Hammond Grange. "I don't know much about him (Mandaric), but I just want what's best for Leicester City," she said. "I want them to do well and get into the Premiership." There are 48 shareholders. The club has previously said there are 47 shareholders, but had not counted the one share owned by New York-based Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, with whom City have a £15.9m loan for the Walkers Stadium. Teachers own only one share to give them access to information and documents restricted to shareholders. Sounds good ...just wait and see, off to Brighton Beach at the Uni where i can forget losing to Wednesday and all this shilly-shally-ing over the Mandaric bid
Foxes_Trust Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 Have you asked the membership how they wish to be represented in this matter? Have you presented the membership with options? NO. I trust you less than I trust Mandaric at this moment in time because you have made no effort whatsoever to communicate with the Trust membership. Before this broke the Trust has proved itself incapable of representing the fan in the seat. The Trust represents itself and its position in the after match Directors lounge. It ensures it gets its cup of soup at half time and its free program. It does not hold itself accountable and therefore is not trustable. We e-mailed our members on Oct 29th with some initial news, and over the last week we have received a number of e-mails from members about the situation, we wish members would e-mail their views to us more often & become more active. Another e-mail will be sent to Trust members tomorrow, so please check your inboxes & if you don't receive an e-mail, e-mail us with your current e-mail address. For those who aren't current members, you can join now http://www.foxestrust.com/join/joinwp.htm we will consult members as often as possible
Foxes_Trust Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 As a paid up memeber of the Foxes Trust I trust them to let me know when they have someting they can and are able to communicate. However I'd have prefer it if the current communicating they are doing on this forum, although it tells us pretty much sod all was put in an email and sent to me. I really don't think they should be posting on the websites at all at this time, if they have something that has any substance to it, nothing yet it seems then that should be communicated directly to members only or if for the general non-member posted on their site. The professional stance they are taking is diminished by this tittle tattle approach. If they feel, as a matter of prinicipal they need to let something go public in the best interest of the fans and aren't in a position to do so, I would, somewhat reluctantly suggest they do what MM and the shareholders are doing and leak it. We will be e-mailing members tomorrow with a little more depth on the current situation, but making it quite clear that this information is not to be then re-posted on message boards.
Foxes_Trust Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 Have you gone to your members for a vote on how you should stand? You are centianly not been unbbiased and choose to make comments reffering to milan but not the alternative bid. That is because MM has gone public, no other interested parties have. We will communicate with members & seek opinons yes, but we can't break the confidential nature of the bids & give enough information to enable a full vote
Babylon Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 That is because MM has gone public, no other interested parties have. We will communicate with members & seek opinons yes, but we can't break the confidential nature of the bids & give enough information to enable a full vote The fact the others haven't come forward makes me very nervous about their bids. What are they trying to hide? That they are involved with the tigers maybe!
Foxes_Trust Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 Well said Davie, as a paid up Trust member I too dislike this method of communication. We had refrained from making any message board posts for several days, however the thinking across the message boards was growing & growing, aided by the Mercury articles, that the LCFC board was dithering about a £25m offer (perceived by most as a cheque waiting to be written), this isn't the case, hence we posted & then stated slightly more once another shareholder had spoken to the Guardian. We felt we had to address the fans being mis-led. Our first priority is our members & hence more considered thoughts will be sent by e-mail tomorrow, as we are close to finalise the content. As a Trust member I am perfectly entitled to criticise the Trust if I so choose. The thing is, I demand factual content from them if they are making a statement whereas you prefer to use and listen to rumour. . Agreed on the criticism, although it would be more helpful to do so via e-mail, then maybe put off potential members from joining us, particularly at this crucial time. Have a read of the e-mail tomorrow DB to fully understand the dilemma we face and then please respect what is requested in the e-mail. ....to have them dribbling inferences that all is not as it should be with the bid ..We are trying to address the media inaccuracies only At this moment in time ONLY board members and MM's team are aware of the full details of the bid...True, therefore via our Observer we are aware I am holding judgement until I have those facts We wish many other fans would follow your example, whether the full facts ever become public we will wait & see
Foxes_Trust Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 -=========================== Not wishing to be especially critical but the rub here is that while the Trust can represent some of the fans when decisions are taken they seem to be effectively prevented by "private and confidential" protocol from actually discussing important issues before they are voted on, so bad decisions can still be made without the Trust being within their rights to say anything I'm not blaming the FT. A lot of our supposed democracy works, or doesn't work, like this. But to some extent they're snookered. My own view is that Private and Confidential should be the exception rather than the rule and far too much is hidden from view, by Governments, by councils, by public companies, by public bodies and by football clubs, because of their special relationship and reliance on the public. I suppose I've never been a trusting individual and detest the concept of deception. In other words, if people don't feel they can argue their case honestly in public, and are not then obliged to stand by any statements of intent made in that argument, the probability is their case is flawed or there's a hidden agenda. The Trust Board would be happier if we could give more details to members, if it was a single bidder it would be less complex, but with other interested parties, giving out too much information could damage the end result for the club
Foxes_Trust Posted 4 November 2006 Posted 4 November 2006 The only information of any value in the public domain is that MM has put in an undisclosed bid for LCFC, which he believes is a fair offer - any reference to £25m is just unsubstantiated newspaper talk LCFC have received that bid and have/are considering it with other "options available to the club in terms of generating new investment to fund the club's ambitions" - any indication of what those options might be are based solely on rumours. LCFC have agreed to meet MM. The only indication we have of what the motives of the board/shareholders are is that they will do what is best for LCFC and in some 'quoted' cases to get their investment back. In essence that's all we know; which in terms of making a judgement on the best way of taking this football club forward is totally insufficient. I therefore remain firmly on the fence as to which direction I would like to see the club go. Excellent summary of the actual public facts & why all City fans should be equally perched on the fence with you, you should post this on all the message boards DavieG Even though we have much more information, we still require answers to many questions & aim to get them as the situation progresses
Ultra Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 While drinking in Sheffield before yesterday's match, I met a number of senior club sources. They let it be known that they were not pleased by the local tabloid's coverage of events. "More spin than Shane Warne" was a phrase used to describe one notorious hack and his behaviour this week. The sources were also dismissive of the "£25m" figure being touted around by the Mandy camp and left us in no doubt that he has a lot more to do if he wants to reach a deal. Although there is clearly a range of opinions among the shareholders, I very much doubt whether as things stand there will be a sufficiently strong consensus to back this bid.
Brummie-FOX Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Looking forward to waking up.. today to see what the Sunday papers say
Poakey Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=4...+envy+for+Foxes Portsmouth manager Harry Redknapp believes Championship sides will become envious of Milan Mandaric's potential £25 million takeover of Leicester City. Mandaric brought his seven-and-a-half-year reign at Portsmouth to an end in September, after he was bought out by Alexandre Gaydamak. Now, his attentions have turned to The Foxes and he is widely tipped to take control of at The Walkers Stadium in the coming weeks. "He is fantastic, a great man for the club," said Redknapp. "To be honest, there are an awful lot of clubs out there who would love someone like Milan Mandaric to take them over. "I am sure he will give Rob Kelly all the backing and make some money available to improve the team."
Milky Posted 5 November 2006 Posted 5 November 2006 Mandaric fits the bill - by Gary Lineker lineker article in the telegraph
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.