Foxes Trust Match Report

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

Status
Not open for further replies.
But the match reports are always written by a member of the FT, and always contain the disclaimer that it's their opinion only. If the FT had changed it people would accuse them of censorship.

If it had been up to me I'd have asked the author of the report to reconsider their wording before publishing it, as it makes them look like an idiot.

I doubt many casual readers notice the disclaimer though
 
A disclaimer is just a get out clause.

The FT have full control over what is printed on their site.

This geezer indicated that MMs grandson wasn't welcome at City because he wasn't from Leicester. That is racist.
 
But the match reports are always written by a member of the FT, and always contain the disclaimer that it's their opinion only. If the FT had changed it people would accuse them of censorship.

If it had been up to me I'd have asked the author of the report to reconsider their wording before publishing it, as it makes them look like an idiot.

Or they could have just said it wasn't appropriate for that racist claptrap to be published on their website, just like any (supposed) credible outfit would

Any organisation that did not is damned (quite rightly) by association
 
Last edited:
He's Serbian what did the guy expect the little boy to say ''Eh Up Me duck'':icon_roll
 
Last edited:
A disclaimer is just a get out clause.

The FT have full control over what is printed on their site.

This geezer indicated that MMs grandson wasn't welcome at City because he wasn't from Leicester. That is racist.

obviously someone whos against foreign input in football but it isn't a racist remark. Either way he definately doesn't speak for every Leicester fan. The article doesn't really bother me anyway.. I still don't know what the Foxes Trust is meant to be exactly :lol: I always just see them as a group of people who think they are more powerful than they are within the club :102: that's just the impression I get..

On a slight side note.. what a great start to this new era.. can't wait for tomorrow night.. I think it's after tomorrow that we have some tough ties coming up so 3 points tomorrow night will go down a treat..
 
But the match reports are always written by a member of the FT, and always contain the disclaimer that it's their opinion only. If the FT had changed it people would accuse them of censorship.

If it had been up to me I'd have asked the author of the report to reconsider their wording before publishing it, as it makes them look like an idiot.

If the FT want to be seen as a responsible and grown-up organisation, they would be better advised to censor rather than to condone this kind of jingoistic outburst.
 
If the FT want to be seen as a responsible and grown-up organisation, they would be better advised to censor rather than to condone this kind of jingoistic outburst.

I'm sure many people would have preferred the club to remain in local hands. I suspect that's what the writer was trying to say, they just worded it in a way that makes it look bad.
 
Holy cow, i wasn't expecting this.

I think his comments were misguided at best.

What if the chap had a Liverpudlian or Scottish accent? Would the same comment of been written.

Someone with authority let that pass, hiding behind a disclaimer doesnt wash with me.
 
It's a pathetic report. I've felt and argued that the FT have done very well during this saga, but they've really let themselves down by publishing that. My accent isn't from any part of Leicestershire either, nor are those of half the people I go with. FT members should be upset that this is published on their organisation's site. I was thinking of joining, but not sure now.
 
I vish to sank you all for ol your kind vords, ja bless.
 
I'm sure many people would have preferred the club to remain in local hands. I suspect that's what the writer was trying to say, they just worded it in a way that makes it look bad.

I'm sure you are correct - but that little disclaimer can never hide the FT's part in publishing it.
 
You haven't fell for the chestnut again Jeff.

They decide what does and what doesn't go on there. They rubbed their hands together when this was commisioned, sorry written knowing the little bit of text could be used in any argument.

If the writer chose to put something bad about the FT in that report, it wouldn't have been aired.

Showing more of their true colours I'm afraid

As far as match reports are concerned we have not edited a single report since we first published them. This will remain the policy, it is a personal viewpoint of an individual member only and we don't believe we should try & edit in any way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool2150
2Arsenal2244
3Nottm F2244
4Chelsea2240
5Manchester C  2238
6Newcastle2238
7Bournemouth2237
8Aston Villa2236
9Brighton2234
10Fulham2233
11Brentford2228
12Palace2227
13Manchester U2226
14West Ham2226
15Tottenham 2224
16Everton2120
17Wolves2216
18Ipswich2216
19Leicester2214
20Southampton226

Latest posts

Back
Top