Questions for the Foxes Trust

[homer]

how many members does the trust have?

Well it's now 11 days since the FT were asked the most simple of questions, and since then they have posted 10 times on this site over four separate days

And still we have no answer

I now note that on another site you make reference to the fact that your February quoted figure was "greater than the 600" figure that someone suggested

I also note that the innocent request for an answer to a simple question on this forum (in a thread that you specifically created for the purpose of asking you questions) is referred to on another site as "an obsession"

It is your complete refusal to give a straight answer to a straight question that has caused our "obsession", and I would suggest the repeated calls for a straight answer is a more than reasonable request

So I ask you, yet again, could you please answer the question first put to you on 21 June - and not the figure as at four/five months ago, but right now. How many members does the Foxes Trust actually have right now ?

Not obessesive - but if you can't answer this simple, straightforward question about membership then why the feck should anyone bother asking you a question ever again ?

 

[Redditch Fox]

Well it's now 11 days since the FT were asked the most simple of questions, and since then they have posted 10 times on this site over four separate days

And still we have no answer

I now note that on another site you make reference to the fact that your February quoted figure was "greater than the 600" figure that someone suggested

I also note that the innocent request for an answer to a simple question on this forum (in a thread that you specifically created for the purpose of asking you questions) is referred to on another site as "an obsession"

It is your complete refusal to give a straight answer to a straight question that has caused our "obsession", and I would suggest the repeated calls for a straight answer is a more than reasonable request

So I ask you, yet again, could you please answer the question first put to you on 21 June - and not the figure as at four/five months ago, but right now. How many members does the Foxes Trust actually have right now ?

Not obessesive - but if you can't answer this simple, straightforward question about membership then why the feck should anyone bother asking you a question ever again ?

I think that the FT has made it perfectly clear now that it is hanging on in the hope that the government legislates that there must be a supporters representative on the board of every football club.

I don't think this will happen because it won't be given time before the next General Election to go through the legislative process. I would have thought that a change of Government would then rule out this possibility.

 

[jb5000]

I think that the FT has made it perfectly clear now that it is hanging on in the hope that the government legislates that there must be a supporters representative on the board of every football club.

I don't think this will happen because it won't be given time before the next General Election to go through the legislative process. I would have thought that a change of Government would then rule out this possibility.

There's two years before the next GE, that's plenty of time to do this and much more. It's also the kind of thing they seem to like to focus on, rather than say, the economy, the schools, or knifecrime, so don't be surprised. In fact, there might be a rush to get this kind of thing done. The Tories rushed through rail privatisation just before the '97 GE as they knew they would lose- likewise stuff like this and the Equality Bill stinks of not-being-thought-through-enough.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

There's two years before the next GE, that's plenty of time to do this and much more. It's also the kind of thing they seem to like to focus on, rather than say, the economy, the schools, or knifecrime, so don't be surprised. In fact, there might be a rush to get this kind of thing done. The Tories rushed through rail privatisation just before the '97 GE as they knew they would lose- likewise stuff like this and the Equality Bill stinks of not-being-thought-through-enough.

I think you'll find that the government will have no time for legislation relating to football, the next 2 years will be a desperate bid to save themselves with legislation aimed at getting support from the over 60's, women etc. There are no votes in this so they'll steer well clear.

 

[Redditch Fox]

There's two years before the next GE, that's plenty of time to do this and much more. It's also the kind of thing they seem to like to focus on, rather than say, the economy, the schools, or knifecrime, so don't be surprised. .

I would be amazed not surprised - as BB says there are no votes in this. A few Trusts anoraks can dream about it but I think we are quite safe from the unbearable nonsense we would get from the Foxes Trust if this should happen. And if the worst came to the worst there would probably be lots of complicated stuff about processes for trust formations, opening up the trusts etc and you can imagine the back stabbing that would be rife about the selection of the board member.

 

[jb5000]

I would be amazed not surprised - as BB says there are no votes in this. A few Trusts anoraks can dream about it but I think we are quite safe from the unbearable nonsense we would get from the Foxes Trust if this should happen. And if the worst came to the worst there would probably be lots of complicated stuff about processes for trust formations, opening up the trusts etc and you can imagine the back stabbing that would be rife about the selection of the board member.

This isn't about votes, do you really think they *could* turn it around from this point? It is about a government changing the country to fit its vision while it's got the chance. This exactly what the Tories were doing in 96-97, and we're begining to see signs of it from Labour now.

And whether the solution is workable or not hasn't stopped this government before...

 

[Redditch Fox]

This isn't about votes, do you really think they *could* turn it around from this point? It is about a government changing the country to fit its vision while it's got the chance. This exactly what the Tories were doing in 96-97, and we're begining to see signs of it from Labour now.

And whether the solution is workable or not hasn't stopped this government before...

Maybe - but I just doubt whether this particular issue would be a big enough priority.

 

[Disco Bob]

It is about a government changing the country to fit its vision while it's got the chance.

I think this Government has about as much vision as those who lead the Trust.

 

[1966]

I think this Government has about as much vision as those who lead the Trust.

I wouldn't dissagree too much with your assertion.

The worrying thing is that the "other lot" would be far worse, if that is possible.

 

[bocadillo]

I wouldn't dissagree too much with your assertion.

The worrying thing is that the "other lot" would be far worse, if that is possible.

Who? Cliff Cornetto and his Supporting Club?

 

[bocadillo]

I think this Government has about as much vision as those who lead the Trust.

... and are similarly as keen to hang on to what little power they have without a thought for their dignity.

 

[Redditch Fox]

... and are similarly as keen to hang on to what little power they have without a thought for their dignity.

I do think that with the Foxes Trust having damaged the interests of the club over Warnock and their implicit admission that all they are about now is hanging on in the slim hope that the Government brings in legislation to create slots on football club boards, that representations should be made to the owner to kick them out of The Walkers.

 

[DesertFox]

I do think that with the Foxes Trust having damaged the interests of the club over Warnock and their implicit admission that all they are about now is hanging on in the slim hope that the Government brings in legislation to create slots on football club boards, that representations should be made to the owner to kick them out of The Walkers.

That's total bullshit!! They represented to the club what the majority of fans felt, no more, no less, FACT.

On the one hand you are crediting the FT with the ability to "damage the interests of the club". On the other hand you say they are impotent and irrelevant. Which one do you want? You simply can't have it both ways (without being a complete and utter hypocrite, that is).

 

[Macky]

I love this thread.
Impotent organisations criticised by impotent critics.
What's not to love about that?

 

[Redditch Fox]

They represented to the club what the majority of fans felt, no more, no less, FACT.

I've ignored the personally abusive part of your post.

However, on the bit I have quoted, you have no evidence whatsoever for making that assertion - and that is a fact.

 

[OldGit]

Scenario 1

MM "hmmm... Who shall I appoint? NW would be good. I know He doesn't want the job, but I could get my Special Friends to persuade him. But would it make me popular. What do you think TNBD? would the fans be upset?"

TNBD "Why not nip down to the trust office and ask them"

...

...

MM "So, FT, is there a manager who the fans would really not want"

FT "All the feedback shows there is widespread aversion to Colin Wanker"

MM "Hmmm...never heard of him"

TNBD "They mean NW - it's the English love of Crosswords and the News Quiz, boss"

A familiar story unfolds... move to end of season

MM "FT, why did you advise me not to appoint NW.. I mean CW?"

Flash of lightning...crash of thunder.. door bursts open and in bursts RF

"Mighty Sauron.....Masssster, thems is nast hobbits. They stole your precioussssss. Desstroy them!!"


Scenario 2

MM "hmmm... Who shall I appoint? NW would be good. I know He doesn't want the job, but I could get my Special Friends to persuade him. But would it make me popular. What do you think TNBD? would the fans be upset?"

TNBD "Why not nip down to the trust office and ask them"

...

...

MM "So, FT, is there a manager who the fans would really not want"

FT (thinks. we'd better not tell him the truth, we'll only get the blame ..) "They'd take anyone but Arsene Wenger"

MM "Odd, the message boards, paper, radio are all slagging off someone called CW"

FT Ignore them. They are only a fraction of the fans

MM appoints NW

Game one, dominate the play but lose 1-0 to Blackpool. NW blames it on the league giving us a more difficult fixture list than the rest of the division

Game 2, draw at Palace NW blames the league for instructing refs to penalise him for playing 10 right backs

A familiar story unfolds... move to end of season

MM "FT, why did you not advise me not to appoint NW.. I mean CW?"

Flash of lightning...crash of thunder.. door bursts open and in bursts RF

"Mighty Sauron.....Masssster, thems is nasty hobbitses. They stole your precioussssss. Desstroy them!!"

 

[DesertFox]

I've ignored the personally abusive part of your post.

As the mods always tell you to do, I went after the post, not the poster. Nothing personal whatsoever. Mind you, this is the thread for airing personal vendettas it seems...

However, on the bit I have quoted, you have no evidence whatsoever for making that assertion - and that is a fact.

OK, I shouldn't have used the word fact. I wasn't there personally. All I'm going on - flimsy at best - is the results of polls on this site, other LCFC forums, in the Mercury, radio, etc, plus the strong opinions expressed on the forums and in the papers. All of that can be found if anyone is that bothered to do so (please don't make me do it!), and it all points to a clear majority of fans not wanting Warnock. Plus the reports from the FT themselves that they represented this view to the club. I'm fairly certain that either the club or MM himself also confirmed this. There is no reason to believe that did not happen.

So as you say, "no evidence whatsoever for making that assertion - and that is a fact." :icon_roll

Oh, by the way -and sorry for being so rude and badgering someone for an answer they clearly don't want to give - but you didn't answer my question: in a nutshell, do you think the FT is a pointless nonentity or is their voice so great they can influence decisions on managers? Which one?

 

[Redditch Fox]

OK, I shouldn't have used the word fact. I wasn't there personally. All I'm going on - flimsy at best - is the results of polls on this site, other LCFC forums, in the Mercury, radio, etc, plus the strong opinions expressed on the forums and in the papers. All of that can be found if anyone is that bothered to do so (please don't make me do it!), and it all points to a clear majority of fans not wanting Warnock. Plus the reports from the FT themselves that they represented this view to the club. I'm fairly certain that either the club or MM himself also confirmed this. There is no reason to believe that did not happen.

So as you say, "no evidence whatsoever for making that assertion - and that is a fact." :icon_roll

Oh, by the way -and sorry for being so rude and badgering someone for an answer they clearly don't want to give - but you didn't answer my question: in a nutshell, do you think the FT is a pointless nonentity or is their voice so great they can influence decisions on managers? Which one?

It hasn't been conclusively tested whether a majority wanted Warnock. However, football management is about making good judgements not guessing what the majority of fans might want at a particular moment in time. I would hazard a guess that by the time we reached this February and the club was sinking through a manager who was obviously completely out of his depth that the majority of fans would have been delighted to see Warnock in charge.

On the Foxes Trust - my view is that they it is a "pointless nonentity" in terms of what it can achieve by its own efforts. I also don't think it has any significant influence. Unfortunately, such organisations can be used by others for ill effect and the Trust seemed to adopt a sort of lowest common denominator approach to the Warnock issue. I tend to go along with the view that MM was able to use them as a contributory factor in not appointing Warnock and I also go along with the view expressed by Jeff that Warnock would not have co-existed with Mandaric for long anyway because he wouldn't have stood for Mandaric's "interference". It's likely that Mandaric understood all that and would have been diffident about appointing such a strong character.

 

[Disco Bob]

I love this thread.
Impotent organisations criticised by impotent critics.
What's not to love about that?

I just knew those bloody children weren't mine - and now with this I have the proof.

 

[Macky]

I just knew those bloody children weren't mine - and now with this I have the proof.

I wouldn't say it's conclusive proof DB, I don't even remember posting that! :icon_bigg