Player Images E-Bay Auction

[spionfox]

Maybe if you didn't write posts like this which make you look like a bunch of total and utter ****s people would cut you some slack, you humourless ****ing prick.

Glad to see you are attacking the post and not the poster :icon_wink

 

[SJN-Fox]

Why do they need to monitor the forums anyway? Why not just watch their ebay items. In fact, doesn't communication outside of ebay breach their T+Cs?

 

[Motown Fox]

Actually I think you are right SJN and they are pretty strict on these things as there are a few scams that Ebay are trying to get a handle on.

There's one that involves the bidders of an auction being contacted outside ebay to say that the winner of the auction couldn't go ahead so would they like the item for how much they bid even though this was less than the winning bid. So they pay up thinking they are in luck only to find the item never arrives. If there are a number of bidders the more the scammer can hope to get.

 

[RHYDAL]

I think threads about e-bay stuff should have a place of their own. Perhaps within the pub section. Oh wait a sec....

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Actually I think you are right SJN and they are pretty strict on these things as there are a few scams that Ebay are trying to get a handle on.

There's one that involves the bidders of an auction being contacted outside ebay to say that the winner of the auction couldn't go ahead so would they like the item for how much they bid even though this was less than the winning bid. So they pay up thinking they are in luck only to find the item never arrives. If there are a number of bidders the more the scammer can hope to get.

We certainly won't be working that way.

We are only keeping message board posters updated as to what is live on e-bay & answering questions about future e-bay activity, we won't be answering anything to do with the lots once they are live, as that facility is available through e-bay.

The auction is for charity, with the Trust running the auction, but also working closely with the club

 

[alex]

Can someone please, seriously, try and explain the animosity on here for the FT? I really think I must have missed something?

 

[indierich06]

Can someone please, seriously, try and explain the animosity on here for the FT? I really think I must have missed something?

I don't personally have a particular problem with them - they are an insignificance to me, but I think people on here see them as a bit pompous and out of touch. The FT seem to view themselves as a very important, top-secret society, they refuse to reveal how many members they have (which would suggest their numbers are dwindling and they are waning as an organistation - their refusal to reveal their figures makes them seem a bit desperate and that they're clinging on to the belief that they are still relevant). I think it irks a lot of people that a small, insignificant organisation is going round proclaiming themselves as the voice of the fans, which simply isn't true.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Can someone please, seriously, try and explain the animosity on here for the FT? I really think I must have missed something?

It's different things for different people, I know of someone who hates them mainly because they made a big deal of how they had a box at the Millwall game our fans were banned from, this person had not missed a single game in 15 years before that day (including going to Anfield and sitting in the Kop on the night no away fans were allowed) and was not happy having so called fans reps with no similar records rubbing salt in the wound.

My personal concern is they are a very closed organisation for one that is supposed to be open and inclusive, they have some very poor executives.

 

[Jeff]

It's different things for different people, I know of someone who hates them mainly because they made a big deal of how they had a box at the Millwall game

The "Foxes Trust" didn't have a box at the Millwall game because they hadn't been officially formed at the time of the match.

I know one of the people at the trust went to that game, but that's because they bought membership at Millwall when the ban was announced, before the trust had even been thought of. Many other Leicester fans did the same thing.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

The "Foxes Trust" didn't have a box at the Millwall game because they hadn't been officially formed at the time of the match.

I know one of the people at the trust went to that game, but that's because they bought membership at Millwall when the ban was announced, before the trust had even been thought of. Many other Leicester fans did the same thing.

It's a long time ago and not my reason anyway, the original committee certainly had a few members who came across in a very poor way and seemed to feel they were buying the club for themselves, as I said I have always viewed the trust as too closed in their communication, the whole thing about not telling anyone anything unless they join is fairly masonic.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

I don't personally have a particular problem with them - they are an insignificance to me, but I think people on here see them as a bit pompous and out of touch. The FT seem to view themselves as a very important, top-secret society, they refuse to reveal how many members they have (which would suggest their numbers are dwindling and they are waning as an organistation - their refusal to reveal their figures makes them seem a bit desperate and that they're clinging on to the belief that they are still relevant). I think it irks a lot of people that a small, insignificant organisation is going round proclaiming themselves as the voice of the fans, which simply isn't true.

We regularly ask members for feedback on issues and periodically carry out e-mailed surveys of our membership to gain their views on a variety of topics.

In terms of being in touch with the wider fan base, we do read the message boards and talk to fans (members & non-members) at games, so I don't think it is true we are out of touch, perhaps those that believe this should give examples.

Most posters who ask for membership numbers are our known critics, so would appear to be asking for only one reason (to beat us over the head with them) regardless of what the numbers are (which as per the vast majority of fans organisations will only be a small % of the average crowd size for Premiership or Championship clubs).

We try to make it clear that we speak on behalf of members, as we did on the last Radio Leicester appearance

 

[Foxes_Trust]

The "Foxes Trust" didn't have a box at the Millwall game because they hadn't been officially formed at the time of the match.

I know one of the people at the trust went to that game, but that's because they bought membership at Millwall when the ban was announced, before the trust had even been thought of. Many other Leicester fans did the same thing.

Glad you answered that Jeff the current board were not aware of this one at all, of the interim board that set up 9+ years ago, there is only one original member who certainly didn't go to Millwall, so I would hope the person who holds this as an issue with the Trust can let this one go.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

My personal concern is they are a very closed organisation for one that is supposed to be open and inclusive, they have some very poor executives.

Aside of the membership numbers, can you give us some examples of how you would like us to be more open and inclusive, ideally based on recent events (not those from years ago), as feedback given will be discussed by the Trust Board

 

[bocadillo]

Can someone please, seriously, try and explain the animosity on here for the FT? I really think I must have missed something?

For my part, I think animosity is overstating it. I feel that that the Trust was born on the back of money that was put into buckets to save the club at the time of administration. There was no indication at the time that it was going to the Foxes Trust and I believe it was truly the property of the newly formed club. The Trust used this money to buy a stake in the new club and when it was bought out by Milan Mandaric, the Trust received a sum of money in respect of this stake.

I feel that the money was never theirs and they should not have benefited from it. When I raised this with the Trust at the time, I was told that they would use it for 'good works'. I'm not aware that this has ever been done. When and if these 'good works' are carried out, I feel it is wrong that the Trust should be able to gain kudos from the use of money that should not belong to them.

I object to the Trust's constant claim that they represent all fans.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Aside of the membership numbers, can you give us some examples of how you would like us to be more open and inclusive, ideally based on recent events (not those from years ago), as feedback given will be discussed by the Trust Board

No, I've 'lost the faith' with you lot and don't want to spend time adding more to your discussion shop, if I was interested I'd join and gain the many benefits on offer.

 

[spionfox]

I feel that the money was never theirs and they should not have benefited from it.

Reminds me of the VAT farce with regard to season tickets.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

For my part, I think animosity is overstating it. I feel that that the Trust was born on the back of money that was put into buckets to save the club at the time of administration. There was no indication at the time that it was going to the Foxes Trust and I believe it was truly the property of the newly formed club.

All the collection buckets had Foxes Trust logos on them, however the money put into buckets only represented a % of the total money raised, with membership subscriptions (along with additional donations), fund raising activities and Birch's run towards the end of the season all contributed to the £150,000 that was invested into the club as part of the consortium.

Those leading the consortium also advised any person who wanted to contribute say £1,000 (too small to an amount to be an individual consortium member) to donate that money to the Trust, on the basis that it would help save the club.

The Trust used this money to buy a stake in the new club and when it was bought out by Milan Mandaric, the Trust received a sum of money in respect of this stake.

That sum being 10% of the original investment, therefore you could say that £135,000 was used to save the club & has not returned to the Trusts bank account. When we voted to accept the Mandaric takeover knowing that the amount of money coming back to the Trust was likely to be a small %, we did take into account that many fans donated into the buckets to save the club, and that is how it has been used

I feel that the money was never theirs and they should not have benefited from it. When I raised this with the Trust at the time, I was told that they would use it for 'good works'. I'm not aware that this has ever been done. When and if these 'good works' are carried out, I feel it is wrong that the Trust should be able to gain kudos from the use of money that should not belong to them. .

So the £15,000 that came back to us, you could argue came from all kinds of sources indeed it's only around half of what Birch's run generated. In terms of potential use of those funds for good works, we do look for suitable use, and had offered to pay for the case surrounding Micky's Filbert St model, but the club were happy to pay.

Equally we could argue that the fund raising efforts of the Trust easily (excluding the buckets & Birch run) were easily in excess of the £15,000.

We have ran a Schools Literacy scheme for 3 years & funded a coach to take the pupils to a game as part of the scheme.

We have sponsored sports coverage on Takeover Radio, with the aim of attracting their younger audience to follow LCFC, prior to doing this their coverage was more Tigers based.

Currently there is another potential use under discussion, but it is too early to say if that element will go ahead or not

I object to the Trust's constant claim that they represent all fans.

We don't constantly claim this (and have now removed the old strap line from the signature on here too. However we still believe it's better to gain opinions from fans organisations who do talk to members, than talk to "guys in the street" who never set foot inside the ground.

 

[homer]

Now who's wittering on and hijacking the thread ?

Perhaps you should start another one - don't want your precious time wasted by having to go through all of this off topic up-your-own-backside cobblers

 

[tedfoxxx]

7.6, nice diddies but I hate tattoos...........

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Now who's wittering on and hijacking the thread ?

Perhaps you should start another one - don't want your precious time wasted by having to go through all of this off topic up-your-own-backside cobblers

Just responding to other posters "off topic" points made about the Trust.

So back on topic then:

The Gary Lineker, Alan Smith & Steve Lynex piece has now reached £337.72 with just over 2 days to go

Latest additions to the auction is a piece featuring Tony Cottee, and one with 8 players from a squad photo including Bobby Smith, Mark Wallington & Larry May

Still can see the current listings & bids at www.foxestrust.co.uk