The Board

[bocadillo]

Not going through this whole argument from nearly 10 years ago again, but Pierpoint made a rod for his own back and O'Neill wasn't going to stand for it.

Pierpoint should have realised that getting involved in football matters in a Kenyon style role was a) out of his depth as he knew nothing about football and b) sidelining one of the shrewdest operators in the transfer market at the time.

To then say that by trying to undermine MON's role should have been accepted because the club should have been able to foresee the ineptness of PT is something called hindsight.

To an extent you are right that if a relationship could have been forged the club would have been better, but quite frankly Pierpoint made his Machiavellian move for power and got what he deserved.

Who said this - certainly not me.

I am very careful to not blame either MON or the Go4 - there was a lot of immature behaviour going on on all sides. But it is nevertheless true that whilst most people (fans) were getting carried away with their support of MON, there were some who held their breath and wondered where the situation would lead.

Clearly nobody knew that Peter Taylor would be so inept - living in Kent, I had closely followed Gillingham's progress that year, attended their play-off final against Wigan, and felt thrilled with his appointment at Leicester (that was me getting carried away by my emotions). That wonderful wonderful skill of hindsight means that (almost, perhaps) everybody can now see that the club was out of control and heading to the disaster that followed.

I'm glad that you finally agreed about the advantage of a good relationship between MON and BP. It's a pity that theirs were the strongest personalities at the Club and that there was nobody equally as strong who could have ensured that relationship.

 

[Dunc]

I'm glad that you finally agreed about the advantage of a good relationship between MON and BP. It's a pity that theirs were the strongest personalities at the Club and that there was nobody equally as strong who could have ensured that relationship.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree but unfortunately Pierpoint miscalculated his move for more power and fell on his sword.

If Pierpoint hadn't tried to become a Peter Kenyon type character then he would probably still be at the club if he wanted to be, but once he did so his job, relationships and power was untenable.

 

[1966]

I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree but unfortunately Pierpoint miscalculated his move for more power and fell on his sword.

If Pierpoint hadn't tried to become a Peter Kenyon type character then he would probably still be at the club if he wanted to be, but once he did so his job, relationships and power was untenable.

He wasn't the only one with an unhealthy thirst for power and shockingly poor judgement.

 

[Babylon]

You said that before. I don't think we are really that intested what individual members think. I think we are much more interested in what the Trust thinks.

But how would they give a view that they all agree on. It's like asking for the team that talking balls think should play. How could you choose a team with so many differing opinions.

 

[Chrysalis]

Yes it was done for the right reasons at that time. To prevent one investor being able to take over the club, it was felt this protected the club from the 'Risdales' of this world.

Even with that cap, it does not prevent any new investor putting in £500k or many of the existing ones upping their stakes to that level.

However only the Foxes Trust has continued to invest on an annual basis, a couple of other shareholders have increased their stake too.

So more or less its a way to keep the current investors locked in place and a big forcefield against 1 rich guy from taking over.

Look at the other clubs that have attracted investment, it doesnt come from a group of people paying a few hundred k each it comes from one person paying millions, this cap was a huge mistake.

Martin george coming back is the only forseeable thing that gives us any kind of hope, if he came up offered money to invest but the condition was the chairman and vice chairman and tim all go for been useless would he be blocked?

 

[Chrysalis]

Absolutely right!

The club is run on the wrong basis and that has been clear to me since administration. A board with no resources, just gimmicks, half baked stuff like the Foxes Trust purporting to represent fans and influence club policies and a bottom line that there is less ambition and clout than that possessed by the average budgie.

This is where we are and its leading to terminal decline.

Ask yourselves what is the club's main asset - its the fan base. Leicester City is potentially a decent, proud club. Tragically, there is no leadership whatsoever and money is thrown at silly salaries for people with no obviously useful role and shoddy PR stunts.

They should acknowledge that they are taking the club down the slippery slope and invite offers for the sale

Well the problem with the way the investment rules is setup is they require a large amount of investors to generate sufficent cash since each can only invest a small amount.

Allowing one investor to grasp the club by the neck only requires 1 investor, it isnt brain surgery.

 

[Chrysalis]

No, any of the shareholders could invest more at present, about 3 of them would be limited to a further circa £100k before hitting the limit.

The shareholders would have to vote to change the articles of association, so would need to be given a strong case for doing so.

So when can you invest your first £500k then drew?

You failing to see his point, he would invest millions but not 500k.

500k is nothing in football and would be wasted with little affect unless their was many other 500ks to go with it.

 

[Jeff]

You failing to see his point, he would invest millions but not 500k.

500k is nothing in football and would be wasted with little affect unless their was many other 500ks to go with it.

*IF* someone has millions to put into the club, and they have the club's best inteests at heart, they should approach the current board with their plans, and then we'll see how the board reacts.

Until that happens all this talk of people coming in with lots of money is just speculation.

 

[Redditch Fox]

*IF* someone has millions to put into the club, and they have the club's best inteests at heart, they should approach the current board with their plans, and then we'll see how the board reacts.

Until that happens all this talk of people coming in with lots of money is just speculation.

Mmm....I don't know about that. Somewhat naive again, I'm afraid

The trouble is that the people who run football clubs like the status it gives them round the county. They won't want to give that up irrespective of whether it's in the best interests of the club.

Anyone who thinks it's in the best interests for the present lot to run LCFC is off their head,IMO.

 

[Jeff]

Mmm....I don't know about that. Somewhat naive again, I'm afraid

The trouble is that the people who run football clubs like the status it gives them round the county. They won't want to give that up irrespective of whether it's in the best interests of the club.

I think that's less likely under the current setup than it has been in the past, they're hardly well known names like some of those we've had in the previously, and a significant number aren't local.

Anyone who thinks it's in the best interests for the present lot to run LCFC is off their head,IMO.

It's easy to say that without giving an alternative.

The fact is when the club was in administration the current shareholders were the ones who came forward and put their money in. There wasn't a serious alternative at the time, what makes you think there is now?
If there is someone around who wants to put money into the club and the current board have told them to sod off I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now. People who take over football clubs are usually egotistical and would make sure the press knew what happened.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

I can understand the FT wanting to take the opportunity to get a little free publicity but I would have thought they could have had the gumption to ask something that they hadn't asked before. There must be other questions that they want answering.

To the people who are aware that the question had been asked before, it just appeared that the FT was throwing a 'patsy' at the Chairman. All this kind of thing does is to strengthen the belief that the FT is in the club's pocket. (Cue the FT to pop in and say they are nothing of the sort)

True - Boc, you are barking up the wrong tree.

We sent in a series of 5 questions to the Radio Leicester programme of which most had previously been covered in the Q & A articles on our website, so why?

a) Because following 2 defeats, they were the questions still being asked on the message boards, so posters hadn't read the Trust Q & A pieces.

and more importantly
b) About 35% of our members have not supplied us with e-mail addresses, which indicates a significant % who would not have internet access & therefore have not read the articles, so their benefit we raised the questions so the Chairman's views could be made available to them via the radio.

Wouldn't think any of the questions raised were 'patsy' and most the questions were raised by other callers or e-mails.

The one question that was clearly indicated as from the Trust was 'what steps are in place to check out any potential large scales investor'. That is a question which was not raised in the website Q & A, but it very important.

Some fans appear to believe we should dump the current set up & grab any large scales investor, even if they are only in it for profit & have no care for the club, so potentially endangering the existance of the club in the long term, our job is make sure that offers like that are rejected.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

I was referring to his time at City, I am well aware that his company bit the dust... :icon_roll

But if his latest company went under, wouldn't you say there would be a risk to LCFC with him at the helm?

The Fit & Proper Person test looks at the financial history of potential owners/those running clubs, a business failure is therefore relevant

 

[Foxes_Trust]

So more or less its a way to keep the current investors locked in place and a big forcefield against 1 rich guy from taking over.

Look at the other clubs that have attracted investment, it doesnt come from a group of people paying a few hundred k each it comes from one person paying millions, this cap was a huge mistake.

Martin george coming back is the only forseeable thing that gives us any kind of hope, if he came up offered money to invest but the condition was the chairman and vice chairman and tim all go for been useless would he be blocked?

As promised previously, the next time we have the opportunity we will ask MG directly, as this 'grasping at straws' keeps cropping up over the months, so we will establish if the possibility is just a dream or has any chance of ever happening from his eyes.

 

[Boy Genius]

True - Boc, you are barking up the wrong tree.

We sent in a series of 5 questions to the Radio Leicester programme of which most had previously been covered in the Q & A articles on our website, so why?

a) Because following 2 defeats, they were the questions still being asked on the message boards, so posters hadn't read the Trust Q & A pieces.

and more importantly
b) About 35% of our members have not supplied us with e-mail addresses, which indicates a significant % who would not have internet access & therefore have not read the articles, so their benefit we raised the questions so the Chairman's views could be made available to them via the radio.

Wouldn't think any of the questions raised were 'patsy' and most the questions were raised by other callers or e-mails.

The one question that was clearly indicated as from the Trust was 'what steps are in place to check out any potential large scales investor'. That is a question which was not raised in the website Q & A, but it very important.

Some fans appear to believe we should dump the current set up & grab any large scales investor, even if they are only in it for profit & have no care for the club, so potentially endangering the existance of the club in the long term, our job is make sure that offers like that are rejected.

If thats what the majority want, why is it up to you to make sure they are rejected. The big investor route could well work. The way we are now might fail, who is to say, so who are you to block such things if the majority want it?????

 

[Chrysalis]

*IF* someone has millions to put into the club, and they have the club's best inteests at heart, they should approach the current board with their plans, and then we'll see how the board reacts.

Until that happens all this talk of people coming in with lots of money is just speculation.

How do you know noone has approached the club?

 

[Chrysalis]

If thats what the majority want, why is it up to you to make sure they are rejected. The big investor route could well work. The way we are now might fail, who is to say, so who are you to block such things if the majority want it?????

Who is to say the current bunch arent in it for profit either.

Talked about this with a forest fan and he said leics current situation reminds him of a previous forest board who coughed up nothing for players saying their wasnt anything and eventually sold the club for profit after milking it for years. The curent bunch like the chairman will profit since he is been paid by the club as well as tim davies.

Nromalyl sole investors mroe often then not are their to lose money but gain success at a football level, whilst groups of businessmen like the ones running leicester are there to make the books balance and get a profit.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

If thats what the majority want, why is it up to you to make sure they are rejected. The big investor route could well work. The way we are now might fail, who is to say, so who are you to block such things if the majority want it?????

BG - you highlighted only the last part of the sentence so took it out of context, the works in Capitals are the point

"so potentially ENDANGERING THE EXISTANCE of the club in the long term, our job is make sure that offers like that are rejected."

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Who is to say the current bunch arent in it for profit either..

We do, have to the accounts, attend the board meetings where key decisions are taken, we know what is going on

Talked about this with a forest fan and he said leics current situation reminds him of a previous forest board who coughed up nothing for players saying their wasnt anything and eventually sold the club for profit after milking it for years. The curent bunch like the chairman will profit since he is been paid by the club as well as tim davies.

True TD & AT receive payment for their work, but no other directors do, at many other clubs there are far more taking a salary out. Also no shareholders have ever been paid or are not seeking any dividends, when profits occur they want it invested in the squad, like any other fan.

They certainly aren't looking to sell for a profit, would only sell if they felt it benefited the club

 

[PFKAKTF FOX]

We do, have to the accounts, attend the board meetings where key decisions are taken, we know what is going on



True TD & AT receive payment for their work, but no other directors do, at many other clubs there are far more taking a salary out. Also no shareholders have ever been paid or are not seeking any dividends, when profits occur they want it invested in the squad, like any other fan.

They certainly aren't looking to sell for a profit, would only sell if they felt it benefited the club

So how come then TD has recieved handsome bonuses on top of his highly competitive salary ??

 

[Ox Fox]

So how come then TD has recieved handsome bonuses on top of his highly competitive salary ??

Which if rumour is to be believed are equal or in excess of his original investment.