LCFC Fans Consultative Committee Working Group Meeting Minutes 20/11/24

[Foxes_Trust]

As one tier of the new LCFC Fan Engagement Framework the first meeting of the LCFC Fans Consultative Committee Working Groups took place on Wednesday November 20th

Foxes Trust board member, Paul Rains, represented us, with the Trust being part of Group 3, so for the first session was part of the LCFC Culture discussions.

The club published the minutes today

LCFC Fans Consultative Committee Working Group Meeting Minutes 20/11/24 – Foxes Trust

foxestrust.co.uk

 

[Brown Nose]

Can I ask about this point in the minutes.

"Digital ticketing – there was an acceptance of the need to move to full digital ticketing as per the Premier League guidance and supporters suggested it could lead to enhanced safety in stadiums".

The people representing supporters on the FAB cannot possibly believe this to be true. The overwhelming majority of fans don't want it or like it. When given the incentive towards digital, most fans actively paid more to not do it.

Does the FT agree with this statement? If not, can you ask the FAB to change it?

 

[homer]

Can I ask about this point in the minutes.

"Digital ticketing – there was an acceptance of the need to move to full digital ticketing as per the Premier League guidance and supporters suggested it could lead to enhanced safety in stadiums".

The people representing supporters on the FAB cannot possibly believe this to be true. The overwhelming majority of fans don't want it or like it. When given the incentive towards digital, most fans actively paid more to not do it.

Does the FT agree with this statement? If not, can you ask the FAB to change it?

Proof positive that either:

A) The Club are just writing up what they want as a result of these meetings; or

B) The fan representatives on this group are a bunch of clueless ignorant ****s just sycophantically agreeing with anything that the Club says


Sadly my strong conclusion is that B) is the answer

 

[Blue Maniac]

Proof positive that either:

A) The Club are just writing up what they want as a result of these meetings; or

B) The fan representatives on this group are a bunch of clueless ignorant ****s just sycophantically agreeing with anything that the Club says


Sadly my strong conclusion is that B) is the answer

I reckon the former is also a factor

 

[give_us_a_wave]

Farcical.

You only need to have been in the world for longer than 5 minutes to know what a "consultation" means.

Councils, government departments, companies etc send them out all the time.
They peruse the results, give feedback to participants, thank everyone for their time. Tell them how valuable their input was & how much it's appreciated.

Then do exactly whatever the **** it was they were going to do in the first place.

**** off.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

As the minutes state, there were 3 working groups.

The Foxes Trust wasn’t in the group discussing digital tickets, neither was UFS

 

[homer]

As the minutes state, there were 3 working groups.

The Foxes Trust wasn’t in the group discussing digital tickets, neither was UFS

Well the whole charade is a complete and utter waste of time, then, isn’t it?

Why weren’t you in the group discussing that - the £25 card thing was an absolute disgrace and you’re not in the group talking about it? It’s a ****ing scandal

What group were you in, then? The one talking about the ‘in-bowl match day experience’?

Embarrassing

 

[Brown Nose]

As the minutes state, there were 3 working groups.

The Foxes Trust wasn’t in the group discussing digital tickets, neither was UFS

It says here that the chap running the farce of a ticketing group was nominated by fellow FAB members. So you nominated him then? In what world is ticketing something that the FT and UFS are happy to defer to others? As a member of FAB, are you unable to challenge the work done on another one of the working groups? Do you agree with the statement from this working group?

 

[homer]

“I wasn’t in that group, so it’s nothing to do with me”

Slopey shoulders being shrugged everywhere

“Not my problem, mate”

Pathetic

 

[Brown Nose]

Can I also ask a question about whoever it is posting as Foxes Trust on here.

Does Jeff know who it is? Is it someone that speaks for the FT and/or the FAB?

I think HFox posts on here and is someone on the FT board so is it him or somebody else?

 

[fox58]

As the minutes state, there were 3 working groups.

The Foxes Trust wasn’t in the group discussing digital tickets, neither was UFS

3 working groups and your only in 1 of them talk about being marginalised. Who decided you could only sit on one group? The Club?

 

[homer]

3 working groups and your only in 1 of them talk about being marginalised. Who decided you could only sit on one group? The Club?

They were sat talking about the in-bowl matchday experience asking for a more varied music selection before the game

Got their priorities bang on

 

[HFox]

Can I also ask a question about whoever it is posting as Foxes Trust on here.

Does Jeff know who it is? Is it someone that speaks for the FT and/or the FAB?

I think HFox posts on here and is someone on the FT board so is it him or somebody else?

It will be speaking for the FT. I’m fairly sure who it is but I’m not fully a board member until January, so be unfair for me to say that. I am not party to anything currently beyond released information

I don’t think the document gives the best description of how the format of it all operates now. The FAB comprises of 6 supporters - one of them is a FT position - effectively they have set up 4 (I think subgroups) within the FAB to which the different 6 supporters are aligned within. So every chance the FT member could be voted now etc - it’s those 6 who’ve nominated the person for that role. The FCC members / fan groups feed into that then - but these people are supposed to constantly change

What I will say is Emily head of Group 1 will be the most partisian. Without her, Union FS wouldn’t be where they are now.

Through someone else I learnt that a lot of the digital ticketing stuff is being pushed by the Premier League and in particular, the big six who have big issues with touting

 

[Brown Nose]

It will be speaking for the FT. I’m fairly sure who it is but I’m not fully a board member until January, so be unfair for me to say that. I am not party to anything currently beyond released information

I don’t think the document gives the best description of how the format of it all operates now. The FAB comprises of 6 supporters - one of them is a FT position - effectively they have set up 4 (I think subgroups) within the FAB to which the different 6 supporters are aligned within. So every chance the FT member could be voted now etc - it’s those 6 who’ve nominated the person for that role. The FCC members / fan groups feed into that then - but these people are supposed to constantly change

What I will say is Emily head of Group 1 will be the most partisian. Without her, Union FS wouldn’t be where they are now.

Through someone else I learnt that a lot of the digital ticketing stuff is being pushed by the Premier League and in particular, the big six who have big issues with touting

Thanks for attempting to clarify a few points.

My issue with posting as the FT on forums by '?' is that most of it seems to be linked to the FAB and their priorities rather than the FT itself. Given that the former chair of the FT was about to be hounded out and managed to get himself a job on the FAB before quitting as chair of the FT would mean I'd be concerned if that is who is posting as the FT. Their credibility is completely gone.

I appreciate that the FT needs to get through the January AGM and sort out their structure. However, being associated with this sort of output from the FAB Working Groups is going to do you no good when you need to rebuild a reputation with most supporters. You cannot be promoting things like default digital ticketing when most fans have shown they don't want it.

I know the PL plans for digital ticketing but, as I understood it, the plan is to grow it, not make it the default option. Yet again this season, there have been multiple issues with digital tickets even though the club have positioned more people at turnstiles to try to alleviate some of them, And many people just don't want to use them or cannot use them.

 

[give_us_a_wave]

It says here that the chap running the farce of a ticketing group was nominated by fellow FAB members. So you nominated him then? In what world is ticketing something that the FT and UFS are happy to defer to others? As a member of FAB, are you unable to challenge the work done on another one of the working groups? Do you agree with the statement from this working group?

" director in the finacial sector "

Right. Definitely the voice of the average fan then.

The money men at LCFC will talk to him in his own language. He'll agree with everything they say & it'll all be rubber stamped.

Then he'll obfuscate it all by never mentioning it & concentrating on some boilerplate inclusion & diversity statement to do with **** knows what...blah blah blah

Just watch.