Financial Fair Play

[Blue Maniac]

The remaining 10% was paid back to the Trust, and the Trust board took the decision to retain the money (along with an additional funds raised) in case of a future crisis. The board then asked members to back that decision at the Trust AGM and continues to confirm with our membership that is still their wishes at each subsequent AGM

So the wishes of the Trust are that the Trust retains the money? Surprising.

Is there any point in asking how many members the FT has?

 

[bocadillo]

Two points to answer

a) Firstly 90% of the money raised was retained within the club when Milan Mandaric took over the club and paid shareholders 10% of their original investment (or you could say was consumed by the club during the period of ownership)

b) The remaining 10% was paid back to the Trust, and the Trust board took the decision to retain the money (along with an additional funds raised) in case of a future crisis. The board then asked members to back that decision at the Trust AGM and continues to confirm with our membership that is still their wishes at each subsequent AGM

Everyone is aware of all of that but not surprisingly your "Two points to answer" fails completely to address the issue raised in my previous post. How is it that the trust was "paid back" money that was never theirs?

 

[fitz]

Is it good to misappropriate monies?

In my opinion, no. Though the trust obviously have a different opinion on what is the right thing to do.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

In my opinion, no. Though the trust obviously have a different opinion on what is the right thing to do.

The trust are hanging onto the money to save for some unspecified future occurance at the club, they should be clear what they would use the money for and IMO it should have been used to help to buy back the stadium, this is the only tangible, foreseeable event that they could actually cost and plan for. The fact that the trust is still holding onto the 'emergency' fund with no plans is a stick that will be used to beat them.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Did the FT people take names and contact details of those who put money in the buckets?

 

[SwedeFox]

Call me a cynic, but I've always been suspicious of the idea of putting money in buckets.

 

[Cate Fox]

This isnt actually relevant to the topic, but who is actually in charge of the FT?

 

[Jeff]

This isnt actually relevant to the topic, but who is actually in charge of the FT?

http://foxestrust.co.uk/foxes-trust-board

 

[Cate Fox]

Perhaps we could be reminded why the trust is hanging onto money which was never theirs in the first place

Has it been publicly stated how much money was returned to the Trust?

 

[Jeff]

Has it been publicly stated how much money was returned to the Trust?

The Trust's shareholding was around £150,000 (a relatively small portion of that came from bucket collections). They received 10% of that back when Mandaric took over.

 

[The Walrus]

Discussion on this topic on the Radio Leicester Monday Night Football Forum

http://foxestrust.co.uk/2434/financial-fair-play-ffp#more-2434

This thread has been created for posters to add any specific aspects of FFP (or football finance in general) that they would like covered during the show

The thread will be reviewed until midnight Sunday night, but cannot promise any posts during Monday will have been seen prior to the show

Please see the thread "who will be next". I have asked a question in that and you guys haven't yet responded.

 

[The Walrus]

So that you can't miss it, it is post #305.

 

[Cate Fox]

The Trust's shareholding was around £150,000 (a relatively small portion of that came from bucket collections). They received 10% of that back when Mandaric took over.

Thanks for answering both of my questions Jeff

 

[camberwell fox]

If we were to take Bocs objections to the logical conclusion, where should the Trust put the money it collected?

 

[bocadillo]

If we were to take Bocs objections to the logical conclusion, where should the Trust put the money it collected?

I believe that the money belongs to the reformed club. It was not put into buckets so that a third party could buy shares in the new club.

 

[SJN-Fox]

So let me just see if I've got this right. The trust is now the guardian of around 10% of the money that was given by lots of individuals for a good cause back when the club needed saving.

Should a dire emergency arise, the destination and use of that money will be decided upon by a few select individuals, many of whom may not even have contributed to this 'fund' even though this use may be contrary to the use for which it was originally donated.

Forgive me for thinking this, but, if this had been done on behalf of, say, a political party, I'm pretty darn sure there would be very strong voices crying foul play. Yet, because it has all been done behind closed doors in so called good faith then its all ok.

What happens if one, or many, of he original donors does not agree with the use to which this money is put (I don't expect that there will be any form of consultation outside of the Foxes Trust prior to its use). Does that not amount to obtaining money under false pretences?

Right. Ok. I'm glad I've got that straight in my mind. The FT is now holding money to use as it feels fit regardless of the wishes of the people that gave it said money.

Have any of you thought about standing as an MP? Or is that not corrupt enough for you?

 

[Foxes_Trust]

So let me just see if I've got this right. The trust is now the guardian of around 10% of the money that was given by lots of individuals for a good cause back when the club needed saving.

Should a dire emergency arise, the destination and use of that money will be decided upon by a few select individuals, many of whom may not even have contributed to this 'fund' even though this use may be contrary to the use for which it was originally donated.

What happens if one, or many, of he original donors does not agree with the use to which this money is put (I don't expect that there will be any form of consultation outside of the Foxes Trust prior to its use). Does that not amount to obtaining money under false pretences?

The Trust raised £151,000 which was invested into the club in the form of shares. The £151,000 was raised in a number of ways, one of which was bucket collections but certainly those collections did not equate to the majority of the money raised. Of that £135,900 remained within the club.

The most logical way of allocating the use of the funds is if we based the calculation on cash first in = first used, on that basis all money raised from bucket collections was retained in the club.

All shareholders received 10% of their investment back from Milan Mandaric, it would appear that some here are arguing that we should have refused the money & let Milan keep it? This just makes no sense.

In terms of "select few", all the current board members were Trust members when the Trust was formed, so therefore have certainly contributed to the original fund and have also paid a further 9 years of Trust memberships since, so except for those who donated more than £100, will have paid more into the funds then those contributing to buckets 10 years ago.

In terms of future use of funds - these are being kept in case of a future crisis which surely is exactly for which it was originally donated.

Any future consultation on use of funds will only be with Trust members, they have continued to fund the Trust, and therefore money held includes money generated over and above the money received back from MM.

 

[Mawsley]

Opens popcorn, makes a pot of tea, fires up the pipe and waits...

 

[Blue Maniac]

:icon_lol: Jesus Ella Christ.

 

[bocadillo]

The most logical way of allocating the use of the funds is if we based the calculation on cash first in = first used, on that basis all money raised from bucket collections was retained in the club.

A fascinating assumption which certainly suits your needs but otherwise has little merit. It would be just as logical to assume that the 'bucket money' had been used to finance the purchase of a proportion of the shares and therefore that 10% had been returned to the trust.

In any case this is quite irrelevant to the argument that the 'bucket money ' was not for the purpose of a third-party investment. You constantly ignore this point.

All shareholders received 10% of their investment back from Milan Mandaric, it would appear that some here are arguing that we should have refused the money & let Milan keep it? This just makes no sense.

No. It is being argued that the money belonged to the football club and should never have been used by a third-party to invest in the football club. The act of misappropriation took place when the trust decided that the money was theirs to spend as they wIshed. The fact that 10% was returned is thus irrelevant but as it is the case that it was, the money should have been returned to the football club . This makes sense.