What's going on?

[Chrysalis]

Don't know other clubs finances as well as our own.

Leeds money came from Bates & he knows how to play the financial game re-debts.

Cardiff aren't paying for a new stadium & have never had players on the level of wages that our club has had. Remember the playing budget is still in the top 6 of clubs in oue division - we should be able to achieve things on that level of expenditure.

In terms of attracting new investment, how would you go about it then?

I would remove the stupid 500k limit for a start.

If someone came in and had a large sum but in return wanted some power, I wouldnt turn it down flat.

If MG romours are true I would say yes.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

I would remove the stupid 500k limit for a start.

If someone came in and had a large sum but in return wanted some power, I wouldnt turn it down flat.

If MG romours are true I would say yes.

That limit cannot be changed unless approved by 75% of the shareholding.

Don't think its worth gettting too excited about this until we actually know someone has confirmed their interest in a larger investment.

It would cause a greater issue if say one investor wanted to put £1m in & then 3 other current larger investors pulled out

 

[Foxes_Trust]

So while we are in the championship how much do we pay each year in actual figures ?

around £1m

 

[Foxes_Trust]

There are obviously numerous individuals who seem convinced that MG or others are waiting in the wings ready to invest substantially in the club, where does this confidence come from ?

If there are individuals with the finances and passion to run the club differently, what would their plans be - buy the club and run it / just run it ?

Finally how much would they expect to spend on transfer fees for new players in the first season.

If we did have an indication that MG or anybody else wanted to invest heavily then the Trust would ask for a meeting with them to examine their plans (we would be governed by confidentiality required by any potential investor) but would give an indication that someone had confirmed interest

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Does the new club's constitution/rules allow for a 'sugar daddy' to say give several million to the club for transfers/wages without having to formally invest or take over the club?

 

[Redditch Fox]

That limit cannot be changed unless approved by 75% of the shareholding.

Don't think its worth gettting too excited about this until we actually know someone has confirmed their interest in a larger investment.

It would cause a greater issue if say one investor wanted to put £1m in & then 3 other current larger investors pulled out

I get a sense that the FT is somewhat more interested in continuing to have meetings and purporting to represent the fans' views - rather than the club having a more robust financial base.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Does the new club's constitution/rules allow for a 'sugar daddy' to say give several million to the club for transfers/wages without having to formally invest or take over the club?

If they provide the money as a donation & do not want shares in return, don't believe that is an issue.

Question is would anybody be willing to do so withour getting shares.

As a Trust we wouldn't

 

[Foxes_Trust]

I get a sense that the FT is somewhat more interested in continuing to have meetings and purporting to represent the fans' views - rather than the club having a more robust financial base.

Not true.

It's the shareholders votes which would decide if the set up can change with a total of 75% of shares having to approve it.

We would however need convincing by any potential buyer that they had the long term interests of the club at heart.

There are enough stories at other clubs where a new controlling investor has been a long term disaster for the club. Just look at the Rams where the owners took control for £3 & have racked up the debt.

As a shareholder we can try to influence the other shareholders based on our discussion with a potential buyerm should one ever exist

 

[Redditch Fox]

Not true.

It's the shareholders votes which would decide if the set up can change with a total of 75% of shares having to approve it.

We would however need convincing by any potential buyer that they had the long term interests of the club at heart.

There are enough stories at other clubs where a new controlling investor has been a long term disaster for the club. Just look at the Rams where the owners took control for £3 & have racked up the debt.

As a shareholder we can try to influence the other shareholders based on our discussion with a potential buyerm should one ever exist

Sorry - I meant to say above - of course you are correct in what you say. However, as I have said previously I think the governance and ownership/financial investment restrictions set up at LCFC was an understandable reaction to the trauma of administration - but is not necessarily as you put it "in the long term interests of the club".

 

[Leigh]

The League Paper are running a story about how Birch is about to get the boot because of 'cost cutting'.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f202/lcfcpete/Leicester City/ab8bp.jpg

 

[Steven]

So the denials about Neville and Birchenall by FT, Tim Davies and others was disingenuousness in the extreme.

Dictionary
dis·in·gen·u·ous (dĭs'ĭn-jĕn'yū-əs) pronunciation
adj.

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who … exemplified … the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem. Unaware or uninformed; naive.

dis'in·gen'u·ous·ly adv.
dis'in·gen'u·ous·ness n.

USAGE NOTE The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people are unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means “insincere” and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

So the denials about Neville and Birchenall by FT, Tim Davies and others was disingenuousness in the extreme.

We posted what we were told, that the rumours weren't true, as we were told by the club that they were just rumours & Birch was not departing (nor for that matter Neville, although we didn't post that as Birch was the thread subject matter).

We are still fact finding after talking to several parties and will continue to do so until we have a clear understanding of what took place & why

 

[PFKAKTF FOX]

We posted what we were told, that the rumours weren't true, as we were told by the club that they were just rumours & Birch was not departing (nor for that matter Neville, although we didn't post that as Birch was the thread subject matter).

We are still fact finding after talking to several parties and will continue to do so until we have a clear understanding of what took place & why

You must admit that it does look rather embarrasing on the club after such strong denials, that in fact the rumours did carry a fair amount of substance, I would imagine serious reprecussions for senior members of the clubs heirarchy and their credibility is seriously undermined after this debacle.

 

[bocadillo]

So the denials about Neville and Birchenall by FT, Tim Davies and others was disingenuousness in the extreme.

Although not one who would normally defend the Trust, I have got to say that I think they are not guilty on this charge. They simply chose to believe the wrong people - and in the process they became one of them rather than one of us.

Whether that was a good move by the Trust is a matter for individual judgement.

 

[Boy Genius]

Although not one who would normally defend the Trust, I have got to say that I think they are not guilty on this charge. They simply chose to believe the wrong people - and in the process they became one of them rather than one of us.

Whether that was a good move by the Trust is a matter for individual judgement.

What makes me laugh is that they are supposed to have a foot in the door and know whats going on. It seems to me the club play games with them and treat them with contempt.
We seem to be the only ones seeing this.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

You must admit that it does look rather embarrasing on the club after such strong denials, that in fact the rumours did carry a fair amount of substance, I would imagine serious reprecussions for senior members of the clubs heirarchy and their credibility is seriously undermined after this debacle.

That is why we are trying to establish all the background of this saga. Our intention is then to raise the issue in the LCFC board meeting.

 

[bocadillo]

What makes me laugh is that they are supposed to have a foot in the door and know whats going on. It seems to me the club play games with them and treat them with contempt.
We seem to be the only ones seeing this.

Perhaps the Trust's foot wasn't in the door as far as they thought it was. Perhaps the Club treat the Trust with the same kind of disrespect as they treat rest of the fans. Perhaps that is a good thing.

 

[Boy Genius]

That is why we are trying to establish all the background of this saga. Our intention is then to raise the issue in the LCFC board meeting.

and do what? tell them off?

 

[Foxes_Trust]

Although not one who would normally defend the Trust, I have got to say that I think they are not guilty on this charge. They simply chose to believe the wrong people - and in the process they became one of them rather than one of us.

Whether that was a good move by the Trust is a matter for individual judgement.

Depends what the interpretation of 'them and 'us' is?

At present that description seems to fit those for & against changes at LCFC, we are busy talking to individuals sitting on both sides of the fence.

As a fan it's easy to side up with those individuals we know, but there are certainly areas of the club which have underperformed consistently & needed a shake up - if that results in a greater generation of income it will be a good thing.

Changes in other areas though we need further convincing, but we know costs savings are needed from somewhere

 

[PFKAKTF FOX]

That is why we are trying to establish all the background of this saga. Our intention is then to raise the issue in the LCFC board meeting.

How ever much spin is put on this situation, the one thing the club cannot deny is that it has 'misled' or 'misinformed' it's supporters and the Trust and that means that people have to pay the ultimate price, their jobs. This incident has catergorically hammered the final nail in the current regimes coffin, there is nowhere to go from here, the trust has gone between the people who run the club and its customers and surely you the Foxes Trust must have serious reservations about the crediability of these people following this embarrasment.