What's going on?

[EMC Fox]

There are still some players from the 50s attending; they weren't paid too handsomely then and now well past retirement age, I see no reason why they shouldn't get a free tikcet - for themselves but not for their friends and hangers-on.

That sounds just fine... keeps them off the streets anyway

 

[1966]

Dont know we hardly filling the stadium so its not exactly stopping sales.

Youre having a giraffe.

If they have any kind of affinity for the club then surely they would't mind sticking their hand in their pockets for £20-30 every now and then.

Especially when you consider how much they were / are paid.

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

Youre having a giraffe.

If they have any kind of affinity for the club then surely they would't mind sticking their hand in their pockets for £20-30 every now and then.

Especially when you consider how much they were / are paid.

exactly

 

[1966]

The situation reminds me about piss ups and breweries. Before we have TD apologists, just because he was good at the time of the Administration, does not mean that he is up to taking the Club forward. Harsh but true.

Without wishing to sound like a TD apologist I believe he is doing an OK job in fairly difficult circumstances.

Just out of interest on what basis do you think he is not up to taking the club forward, or is it that it is easier to be critical than supportive.

 

[Steven]

Without wishing to sound like a TD apologist I believe he is doing an OK job in fairly difficult circumstances.

Just out of interest on what basis do you think he is not up to taking the club forward, or is it that it is easier to be critical than supportive.

My criticism comes from the fact that instead of looking to substantively grow the Club (by seeking investment for example) he is choosing to reduce the Club. That philosophy has a finite point.

Unless he is more agressive about investment into the Club then the point will come where we can cut no more and Administration will loom again. Even extinction. :icon_roll

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

I thought the ground share proposal was a very serious attempt at major investment and increasing the club's revenues. How do you know TD is not pursuing other forms of investment? Its not like PMQs - "Today I had meetings with ... ". He is not not answerable to us on a daily basis, although from posts I have read he does answer emails. Why don't you ask him if you think he is just cost-cutting?

 

[EMC Fox]

I thought the ground share proposal was a very serious attempt at major investment and increasing the club's revenues. How do you know TD is not pursuing other forms of investment? Its not like PMQs - "Today I had meetings with ... ". He is not not answerable to us on a daily basis, although from posts I have read he does answer emails. Why don't you ask him if you think he is just cost-cutting?

I'd rather have him in charge than the shower that runs the sheep pen near me :icon_roll

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

:icon_lol:

 

[PFKAKTF FOX]

I thought the ground share proposal was a very serious attempt at major investment and increasing the club's revenues. How do you know TD is not pursuing other forms of investment? Its not like PMQs - "Today I had meetings with ... ". He is not not answerable to us on a daily basis, although from posts I have read he does answer emails. Why don't you ask him if you think he is just cost-cutting?

I tend to agree with you there MTBT, we are not aware of what measures not only TD but the club in general is undertaking to generate additional income streams and outside investment, so it would be unfair for us to speculate on that.

However the club and TD can be criticised for it's handling of the current "rumoured situation". If redundancies have to be made for the long term benefit of the club, and it allows it to move forward then so be it, but the way this has been handled has been nothing short of disgraceful.

I understand that for legal reasons, specific individual's circumstances cannot be discussed, however why can't the club come out and make a statement either confirming or denying that the "club is currently undergoing a significant review of its off field operations and as part of this review there is an ongoing restructuring of these affected departments."

This statement would at least confirm or deny that changes are afoot, whilst at the same time not prejudicing any individual case. If this rumour is true then all staff at the club would be aware anyway, hence why various posters are now recieving snippets from sources within the club.

 

[Dunc]

I tend to agree with you there MTBT, we are not aware of what measures not only TD but the club in general is undertaking to generate additional income streams and outside investment, so it would be unfair for us to speculate on that.

However the club and TD can be criticised for it's handling of the current "rumoured situation". If redundancies have to be made for the long term benefit of the club, and it allows it to move forward then so be it, but the way this has been handled has been nothing short of disgraceful.

I understand that for legal reasons, specific individual's circumstances cannot be discussed, however why can't the club come out and make a statement either confirming or denying that the "club is currently undergoing a significant review of its off field operations and as part of this review there is an ongoing restructuring of these affected departments."

This statement would at least confirm or deny that changes are afoot, whilst at the same time not prejudicing any individual case. If this rumour is true then all staff at the club would be aware anyway, hence why various posters are now recieving snippets from sources within the club.

Suffice to say that everyone at the club or those whose opinions have been made clear to me think the bloke is a useless get and shouldn't be trusted.

I on the other hand have never met the man so couldn't say one way or the other.

 

[Steven]

I thought the ground share proposal was a very serious attempt at major investment and increasing the club's revenues. How do you know TD is not pursuing other forms of investment? Its not like PMQs - "Today I had meetings with ... ". He is not not answerable to us on a daily basis, although from posts I have read he does answer emails. Why don't you ask him if you think he is just cost-cutting?

My post is more in the sense that TD may be good at sailing in choppy seas, but not so at ocean racing. :icon_wink

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

What the feck?! Have you Cantona-itis: "When the seagulls are behind the trawler ..."?

 

[1966]

My criticism comes from the fact that instead of looking to substantively grow the Club (by seeking investment for example) he is choosing to reduce the Club. That philosophy has a finite point.

Unless he is more agressive about investment into the Club then the point will come where we can cut no more and Administration will loom again. Even extinction. :icon_roll

I would expect the club to be constantly looking at ways of aggressively growing the club and agressively controlling costs.

As I understand it the club are constantly looking at ways of attracting new investment and achieving greater rewards from the corporate side and will meet with anyone who show's any interest in investing in the club.

My major area of complaint with the club is about communication, I would agree that this particular storm in a tea cup could have been better. If their is a review of the corporate structure under way it would probably have been preferrable to announce it, if their is one under way and we are not talking about some fairly insignificant changes.

 

[Chrysalis]

Regarding investment how many here heard the romour TD and the board turned down 5million in return for a place on the board?

 

[Lboro fox]

Regarding investment how many here heard the romour TD and the board turned down 5million in return for a place on the board?

Not me, from whom? If its someone like the glazers then im not surprised, they have always said that outside investments would be seriously thought about to ensure that the long term future of the club is the priority. Look at Derby, they took the short term cash from the consortium and are now bakc in the poo, dont want to be like that.

 

[Real Sharapova]

Regarding investment how many here heard the romour TD and the board turned down 5million in return for a place on the board?

I don't think they would turn down £500k, to be honest. Having said that, I thing there is a limit as to what one individual can have in shares in the club, to avoid a possible Robert Maxwell situation.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Regarding investment how many here heard the romour TD and the board turned down 5million in return for a place on the board?

More rumours ????

The constitution of the club does not allow one individual to have more than just under 10% of the shareholding, that equates to roughly £500,000.

For the constitution to change it would take the approval of 75% of the shareholders (or more accurately 75% of total shareholding held - so it could be blocked if the top 4 shareholders are against it - which equates to more than 25% of the total shareholding).

A proposal like that should still be put in front of the shareholders though. We have no evidence to suggest this was nothing other than rumour, once that keeps occuring.

However if anybody becomes aware of a potential investor like this, the Trust would want to meet them to understand their plans for the club, just look at Derby is you want a reason as to why.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

I don't think they would turn down £500k, to be honest. Having said that, I thing there is a limit as to what one individual can have in shares in the club, to avoid a possible Robert Maxwell situation.

Agreed at that level the investment would be welcomed

 

[Steven]

What the feck?! Have you Cantona-itis: "When the seagulls are behind the trawler ..."?

 

[Redditch Fox]

More rumours ????

The constitution of the club does not allow one individual to have more than just under 10% of the shareholding, that equates to roughly £500,000.

For the constitution to change it would take the approval of 75% of the shareholders (or more accurately 75% of total shareholding held - so it could be blocked if the top 4 shareholders are against it - which equates to more than 25% of the total shareholding).

A proposal like that should still be put in front of the shareholders though. We have no evidence to suggest this was nothing other than rumour, once that keeps occuring.

However if anybody becomes aware of a potential investor like this, the Trust would want to meet them to understand their plans for the club, just look at Derby is you want a reason as to why.

Yes - and that rule epitomises a lot of what is wrong with Leicester City these days - and is likely to inhibit opportunities to return to top flight status.

As i have said many times - in respect of the impediments placed on serious investment, the club is being run as if it is a social enterprise and not a serious business.