Foxes_Trust Posted 21 March 2005 Posted 21 March 2005 We always like feedback from City fans. We would appreciate if any of you who posted one word answers would expand upon the reasons why you choose the word that you did for the FT. Please post on this thread
Craig Posted 21 March 2005 Posted 21 March 2005 What have you actually done in the last two years? Maybe i'm a bit blind to it, but it seem's that we're (the fans) very rarely (if that) consulted.
City Fan Posted 21 March 2005 Posted 21 March 2005 Your signature says "Foxes Trust Your Club Your Voice" - but we have no input into the club whatsoever. So my One word Answer was 'pointless'
Nationwider Posted 22 March 2005 Posted 22 March 2005 I said "important", as much for historical reasons as present ones. Some people have short memories. It should be important, although for club of Leicester's size, realistically how much direct influence can it have? From what I know of other Trusts, the smaller the club, the more "hands-on" the Trust. Generally, I still feel the Trust is force a for good rather than evil. I've just read the eights Aims of the Trust on the website. Might a general article on the ways in which each of these aims have been addressed over the past 12 months be possible? I'd also be interested on the Trust's comments on this site. I'd rather contribute £35 to this sort of scheme, than p*** my cash away on the latest home kit. I like the idea of ownership, however small.
Chimp Posted 22 March 2005 Posted 22 March 2005 I feel that the Foxes Trust is only allowed a 'voice' as a token gesture, they don't have any real say in anything. While the board may take of 'the fans' views, the final decisons on any matter will always be made on commercial, financial or stragtegic considerations. Hence the reason why I stated impotent as my one word answer. That doesn't mean I don't think they serve a purpose or that they aren't needed. A voice inside the club, no matter how small is better than nothing and I've a feeling that the way things are headed with the ground share etc that the little voice may need to speak up a bit louder. Something that none of us have seen are any accurate financial forecasts/figures that the ground share will be beneficial in the medium to long term. This, amongst other things, is something that the FT should be pushing and campaigning for.
Guest Posted 22 March 2005 Posted 22 March 2005 I haven't posted on the other thread, but I feel that the Trust is redundant as far as the Club are concerned. As Chimp says, I feel that the Foxes Trust is only allowed a 'voice' as a token gesture, they don't have any real say in anything. The groundshare issue springs to mind; it was clear the the FT were not consulted at any stage, yet as board members, I would personally feel insulted if I was a part of it. After all, you would have thought the fans views on this issue were important to the club. I also agree with Nationwiders comment From what I know of other Trusts, the smaller the club, the more "hands-on" the Trust. I know the supporters raised what seems like a considerable amount of money when we went into Administration, but compared with the Club's turnover, it is small change. I think this is reflected in the Club's attitude. As a fundraising exercise, the Trust has it's work cut out. Now we are in no danger of losing the club, apathy has returned to our fans, and most don't seem to give a toss what happens financially. As a voice for the fans, it clearly isn't happening, and the Club don't care what we think about the club, and the way it is run. This is why I think the Foxes Trust is a waste of time.
Ricey Posted 22 March 2005 Posted 22 March 2005 I respect the work the Trust does greatly, to slag them off is very wrong because they tried very hard for this football club. However the club don't seem to take the Trusts opinion as seriously as they should.
Louise Posted 22 March 2005 Posted 22 March 2005 I would perhaps think more of the Trust if they weren't using their time to make juvenile comments on Internet forums.
Jonbluefox9 Posted 22 March 2005 Posted 22 March 2005 One thing that annoyed me about the trust was during pre-season. They asked Leicester fans to stay away from the MK Dons friendly and go to another friendly instead. It was something to do with not giving the money to MK Dons because they'd taken the club away from the fans. I know the FT were only sticking up for a fellow trust but I felt it was wasting it's time trying to persuade the club to cancel the friendly with them. I think the board would have looked upon the trust as coming up with really trivial matters like cancelling friendlies and would 've used that when it came to electing board members. Why should they give the fans a place on the board if they're more bothered about helping fans from other clubs.
Foxes_Trust Posted 22 March 2005 Author Posted 22 March 2005 Thanks for feedback so far - will try to answer each individual point made over the coming days. For those who have asked what have we done - I presume you are not members? We send out both printed & e-newsletters to members & also e-mail questionnaires on selected topics (we will be sending one out on the 1 year kit cycle this week). A look through the news archives will also give you a flavour, but we will post some specifics in reply soon
Anish Posted 23 March 2005 Posted 23 March 2005 Thanks for feedback so far - will try to answer each individual point made over the coming days.For those who have asked what have we done - I presume you are not members? We send out both printed & e-newsletters to members & also e-mail questionnaires on selected topics (we will be sending one out on the 1 year kit cycle this week). A look through the news archives will also give you a flavour, but we will post some specifics in reply soon 82037[/snapback] But what exactly will that achieve? We all know most fans are against the one-year cycle but the club isn't going to change it now...
TrickyTrev Posted 23 March 2005 Posted 23 March 2005 Redundant The club see you as a token gesture and you are fantastic body to give off the false impression of consultantion. The fact remains on the issues the fans seem most opossed to such as ticket prices, the ground share and away game allocations the club has remained apathetic as to the fans opinions. I think the Trust is an honourable organisation but I think their worth is deminished in a club the size of ours and I also feel they have allowed themselves to be used by the club.
Hullfox Posted 23 March 2005 Posted 23 March 2005 I think that to attract a more appreciative audience, the trust needs to start feeling as though they are one acting as one of the fans again. Everyone related to it when they were doing such sterling work in the time of administration but now the non members do not see what (if anything) is being done. However, when we can only muster the level of support that we do home and away (Blackburn and local derbies excepted) I don't see how such an organisation will ever gather momentum again. Issues like the groundshare being so highly objected to by the majority of supporters are a smokescreen also by the critical and more vociferous members of internet forums who use well thought out descriptions as their one worders, particularly with regard to The Trust and Paul Mace. Exactly how many people actually took part in a sit in, sang their disapproval and attended the question and answer evening? Very few that's how many. People are quick to criticise you but don't mind coming to play when you organise the 5-a-side tournament. I for one am grateful for the work that was put in to help the club in it's hour of need but there was such a clearly defined need then that all supporters agreed with. There are very few other issues that a set of supporters will agree on so vehemently and therefore you will not please everybody going forward.
shrood Posted 23 March 2005 Posted 23 March 2005 I respect what the foxes trust are trying to do but apart from the nwesletter and reporting back from the fans forum (where the usual report is the club either ignored or made some ambigious comment that basically amounts to nothing, regarding what the fans wanted) they dont really DO a lot.... I know it is unreasonable to expect an organisation such as this to instantly have any influence at the club, there are other clubs where certain groups do seem to be able to make those above take more notice of what the fans are asking, mabye they need to be more forceful? mabye are demands are unreasonable? mabye this club is just way too stubborn? who knows.... the kit was a prime example, the foxes trust pretty much just came out and said the request theyd put for a one year cycle had been completely ignored...obviously in modern football none of the fans expect the club to be taking notice on every decision but it would be nice just to see a few more prominent victories for the fans interest....
Anish Posted 23 March 2005 Posted 23 March 2005 Another thing that 'irritated' me about the FT was the forum/meeting where the issue of Horny Henry was raised. How they decided to keep the clown when everyone here thinks he is an embarrassment to the club beggers belief. Yes he was unique and a fresh face when he first started, but he has got worse and worse with time, and it's about time he left. Surely the FT could see the fans' reaction to him at home games and should have represented us better.
Scow Posted 23 March 2005 Posted 23 March 2005 Another thing that 'irritated' me about the FT was the forum/meeting where the issue of Horny Henry was raised. How they decided to keep the clown when everyone here thinks he is an embarrassment to the club beggers belief. Yes he was unique and a fresh face when he first started, but he has got worse and worse with time, and it's about time he left. Surely the FT could see the fans' reaction to him at home games and should have represented us better. 82437[/snapback] Unfortunately, you still get a large number of people clapping him, which suggests nothing will be done. Maybe some of us should boo next time?
Muz Posted 23 March 2005 Posted 23 March 2005 Another thing that 'irritated' me about the FT was the forum/meeting where the issue of Horny Henry was raised. How they decided to keep the clown when everyone here thinks he is an embarrassment to the club beggers belief. Yes he was unique and a fresh face when he first started, but he has got worse and worse with time, and it's about time he left. Surely the FT could see the fans' reaction to him at home games and should have represented us better. 82437[/snapback] Unfortunately, you still get a large number of people clapping him, which suggests nothing will be done. Maybe some of us should boo next time? 82439[/snapback] A few people round me Booo him. Might join in next game
filbertway Posted 23 March 2005 Posted 23 March 2005 If everybody booed he would be out staight away, but you'd have to feel sorry for him
Guest Posted 24 March 2005 Posted 24 March 2005 Issues like the groundshare being so highly objected to by the majority of supporters are a smokescreen also by the critical and more vociferous members of internet forums who use well thought out descriptions as their one worders, particularly with regard to The Trust and Paul Mace. Exactly how many people actually took part in a sit in, sang their disapproval and attended the question and answer evening? Very few that's how many. 82316[/snapback] I stayed behind, voiced my disapproval, and went to the Q & A session.
Cobbo Posted 24 March 2005 Posted 24 March 2005 Issues like the groundshare being so highly objected to by the majority of supporters are a smokescreen also by the critical and more vociferous members of internet forums who use well thought out descriptions as their one worders, particularly with regard to The Trust and Paul Mace. Exactly how many people actually took part in a sit in, sang their disapproval and attended the question and answer evening? Very few that's how many. 82316[/snapback] I stayed behind, voiced my disapproval, and went to the Q & A session. 82657[/snapback] Ditto.
BartonFox Posted 24 March 2005 Posted 24 March 2005 I used the word FUTILE, as that is what I see your efforts being. They are being made futile by Paul Mace and those at the Club in general. Trust me they do not want our opinions and whenever we complain it is amunition for them to laugh at us at the water cooler. Someone else said that we are too big a Club for a successful Trust and I agree whole heartedly. We have too many apathetic fans, too many who happily clap along to Rocking All Over the World, Henry and the Ball Boys. When the Trust was formed it was great and it made a difference, forget the money issue but the time and effort of fans helped save the Club. Then they employed Paul Mace again and it was on a loser from there. In the old days of Pierrpoint and Mace they thought they were bigger and more important then Martin O'Neill. They thought it was their gimmicks that got 21,500 people through the turnstiles. Was it bollux, it was a good team with good ehtics that got us through the doors. If it wasn't for CL and his new youthful outlook I bet we'd struggle to hit gates of 17,000 next season no matter what gimmicks Mace comes up with. The one thing that will eventually 'save' the Trust will be Paul Mace, as he will soon enough drop a complete ricket that will unite all City fans in one movement. Then the Trust will make a difference. This isn't a dig at the work the Trust do and I know and appreciate how frustrated they are. Your time will come though.
Hullfox Posted 24 March 2005 Posted 24 March 2005 Issues like the groundshare being so highly objected to by the majority of supporters are a smokescreen also by the critical and more vociferous members of internet forums who use well thought out descriptions as their one worders, particularly with regard to The Trust and Paul Mace. Exactly how many people actually took part in a sit in, sang their disapproval and attended the question and answer evening? Very few that's how many. 82316[/snapback] I stayed behind, voiced my disapproval, and went to the Q & A session. 82657[/snapback] Ditto. 82691[/snapback] That'll be two then will it?
Cobbo Posted 24 March 2005 Posted 24 March 2005 Issues like the groundshare being so highly objected to by the majority of supporters are a smokescreen also by the critical and more vociferous members of internet forums who use well thought out descriptions as their one worders, particularly with regard to The Trust and Paul Mace. Exactly how many people actually took part in a sit in, sang their disapproval and attended the question and answer evening? Very few that's how many. 82316[/snapback] I stayed behind, voiced my disapproval, and went to the Q & A session. 82657[/snapback] Ditto. 82691[/snapback] That'll be two then will it? 82709[/snapback] But it's the two biggest and bestest fans around, so we count as 43,728 people.
Scow Posted 25 March 2005 Posted 25 March 2005 Issues like the groundshare being so highly objected to by the majority of supporters are a smokescreen also by the critical and more vociferous members of internet forums who use well thought out descriptions as their one worders, particularly with regard to The Trust and Paul Mace. Exactly how many people actually took part in a sit in, sang their disapproval and attended the question and answer evening? Very few that's how many. 82316[/snapback] I stayed behind, voiced my disapproval, and went to the Q & A session. 82657[/snapback] Ditto. 82691[/snapback] That'll be two then will it? 82709[/snapback] But it's the two biggest and bestest fans around, so we count as 43,728 people. 82827[/snapback] I attended the sit in. However, due to work, I wasn't able to attend the meeting. <_<
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.