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.
You do realise of course that this 'democracy' in action will just have the 'feckwits' back on here accusing you of being Mandaric arse-lickers whose sole concern is preserving their status, seat on the board etc etc. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But thanks for 'listening'!
 
Foxes_Trust said:
The Trust Board have been circulated to review the report & decide if a policy change will be made in this instance.

At the same time the writer has been contacted to see if he wishes to amend his report, with reference being made to this thread.

This process will take around 24 hours
Click to expand...

good stuff.
 
Congratulating the FT on editing something that should never have happened in the first place........:018: :018: :018:

The FT showed the true colours in publishing this, as has been said because of the no editing policy this one didnt slip through, more likely let through.
The worst part was making fun of the little boy and his accent and the FT backing it up by publishing it.

I am thinking very seriously of joining that fecking band of do gooders as long as I can write a match report after Melts and also be an observer in the board meetings.
 
i just can't get over the small minded ignorance of the review. is this bloke the only person oblivious to the many different accents in leicester? diverse is one word i'd use to describe it
 
Foxes_Trust said:
The Trust Board have been circulated to review the report & decide if a policy change will be made in this instance.

At the same time the writer has been contacted to see if he wishes to amend his report, with reference being made to this thread.

This process will take around 24 hours
Click to expand...

Well done (assuming that the change is made) :038:

This policy cannot continue

What if one of your allocated reviewers wants to witter on about the failings of 'coloured' players - or about how much better we would be if everyone in the team was white ?

In your position you have to exercise some degree of editorial control. It's the public face of the organisation and, as such, it can only reflect on yourselves as well the individual
 
homer said:
Well done (assuming that the change is made) :038:

This policy cannot continue

What if one of your allocated reviewers wants to witter on about the failings of 'coloured' players - or about how much better we would be if everyone in the team was white ?

In your position you have to exercise some degree of editorial control. It's the public face of the organisation and, as such, it can only reflect on yourselves as well the individual
Click to expand...


This is what comes of having a no edit policy, and also proves they could not organise a piss up in a brewery.
 
newtonfox said:
i agree but it was a big move by the FT to post and say they will sort it out within 24 hour takes a big person to admit they are wrong IMO
Click to expand...


but wont they only be wrong should they feel the writer got it wrong for whatever reason :102: if they back him on his report then id say the ft agreed with what was written
 
newtonfox said:
i agree but it was a big move by the FT to post and say they will sort it out within 24 hour takes a big person to admit they are wrong IMO
Click to expand...

Takes a tosser to write the stuff in the first place, and a bigger one to allow it to be published on the website. Its not as if the website will not be read by anybody from the club is it.....
 
drew said:
I'll wait to see if they change it before making any congratulating posts.
Click to expand...

whether it means i am being stubborn or just see the bigger picture, i will never congratulate such morons just because they are trying to correct their little balls up. they are a mickey mouse organisation who have tried time and time again to prove they are a grown up serious group of people and just come accross as total arses. i did once have a membership with them but cancelled as the news letters were full of people who thought they had saved our club (themselves of course, no help) and such things do make you feel like your outside of it all despite having membership and having chucked a fair wad in. actually, i will congratulate when they eventually feck off
 
well said many - but the FT does have a right to pull anything that does not meet with their own equal ops policy, surely? - or does that policy amount to sweet FA?
 
I would like to add that I was in Serbia last week - I am born and bred English but speak the language a little - no body there took the piss because of how I tried to communicate with them and what my accent was!!
 
I think it worthy of aknowledgement (Congratulations is a bit OTT) that the FT have responded to the critisism by reveiwing their policy. and since most of the post on here i'm sure were intended to be constuctive, the responce is appreciated.

Before posting i read through a number of match reports on the FT site, and i was very surprised that the whole MM saga was barely mentioned, save for one comment that stated the writer hoped it would be over soon.

I read nothing that suggested the FT used the reports to encourage any opinion on the affair, i don't see why that would change now.
 
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