Where are the Directors?
- Thread starter Bobby Smith
- Start date
- Status
fairbanksh
New Member
What ever happened to John Holmes?
I thought he had great sense with the blessed Gary and I know he couldnt be Chairman again but is he still around
I thought he had great sense with the blessed Gary and I know he couldnt be Chairman again but is he still around
Keep the Faith
New Member
IMO the board can bring this whole sorry episode to an end by either sacking Micky or publicly backing him.
This silence from them is deafening, the crowd are restless and after every game we are expecting an announcement.
If they arent going to sack Micky then why cant they back him and maybe that might just get the club, players, management and supporters all pulling together.
The board at present are as much to blame for the current unrest. Come on sort it.
This silence from them is deafening, the crowd are restless and after every game we are expecting an announcement.
If they arent going to sack Micky then why cant they back him and maybe that might just get the club, players, management and supporters all pulling together.
The board at present are as much to blame for the current unrest. Come on sort it.
Foxes_Trust
Active Member
fairbanksh said:What ever happened to John Holmes?
I thought he had great sense with the blessed Gary and I know he couldnt be Chairman again but is he still around
Yes, often in discussions with the current directors in the directors lounge after games
Foxes Trust.
What is the view from inside the trust about what is going on, and I dont mean the official view and mean from a personall perspective. You must have a deeper insight than most, about the problems at city.
As far as I can see MA has lost the plot, is there other personall issues that have been hushed up that may explain his bizzare actions and may actually gained him some sympathy and time from the board.
His desicions seam so far of the wall that some people actualy believe he is doing this delibratly to get himself sacked with a pay off.
What is the view from inside the trust about what is going on, and I dont mean the official view and mean from a personall perspective. You must have a deeper insight than most, about the problems at city.
As far as I can see MA has lost the plot, is there other personall issues that have been hushed up that may explain his bizzare actions and may actually gained him some sympathy and time from the board.
His desicions seam so far of the wall that some people actualy believe he is doing this delibratly to get himself sacked with a pay off.
homer
Well-Known Member
It's not for the FT to comment on who should/should not be the manager UNLESS 100% of their members had exactly the same view
This forum (unlike some I could mention) is a perfect example of how that isn't the case. Some think he should stay, some think he should go, some seem to waiver from one week to the next
I'm sure the FT board members have their own opinions, and might express them under their own name, but its unfair to ask them to express it in the name of the FT
This forum (unlike some I could mention) is a perfect example of how that isn't the case. Some think he should stay, some think he should go, some seem to waiver from one week to the next
I'm sure the FT board members have their own opinions, and might express them under their own name, but its unfair to ask them to express it in the name of the FT
Foxes_Trust
Active Member
homer said:
Couldn't have explained it better ourselves Homer.
We have had an FT board meeting tonight & discussed the situation. We do feel our membership are still split on the issue. We have made some decisions tonight which require further work before we can go public on them.
One thing we would say is that if you are a Trust member then please make sure that we have your current e-mail address to ensure we can make contact quickly when needed.
If not a member why not join now & make sure your views are represented.
Foxes_Trust
Active Member
Joe_Fox said:
The username Foxes_Trust is used by several Trust board members to provide an official viewpoint from the Trust. It is used on several fans message boards.
Board members as individuals do have their own user names & can give their own opinions on matters as long as they don't conflict with the agreed Trust policy on an issue.
To explain further the Trust won't have a policy on individual players, so as individuals the Trust board members are free to make comment. However if the board say took a decision over the smoking issue, then none of the board members would post conflicting views to the decision made as a group.
As individuals it varies which boards we post on & it is down to personal preference. The FT was conceived as an idea on the Fox (rivals) site, so a few mainly post on there (as their original message board home). Some however do post on this site
Leigh
Well-Known Member
LS6_Fox said:
Have a butchers at this: http://www.foxestrust.com/html/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=7
I think that the Foxes Trust was the second best best thing that came out of our administration.
Am I right in thinking that it owns about 5% of New Fox PLC? And am I also right in thinking that it raised most of the cash for its shareholding over a few months?
If both these points are true why doesn't the FT have a long term plan to become a major player in the club? The idea is not as crazy as it sounds.
If you could buy around 5% (?) of the shares with just a few months fund raising how about trying to buy say between 0.5 - 1.0% per year over the next 20-30 years?
If the FT went about this in a sensible and public way you might find much good will amongst exisitng shareholders and public benefactors. Private individuals might pledge/bequeath shares to the FT. You might get donations on top.
What about this for a prospect in 30 years time - the only professional football club to be owned and run by its supporters.
Scrub that. On second thoughts no. The idea of Lako, Bazzer and Step running LCFC is to horrible to contemplate!
Am I right in thinking that it owns about 5% of New Fox PLC? And am I also right in thinking that it raised most of the cash for its shareholding over a few months?
If both these points are true why doesn't the FT have a long term plan to become a major player in the club? The idea is not as crazy as it sounds.
If you could buy around 5% (?) of the shares with just a few months fund raising how about trying to buy say between 0.5 - 1.0% per year over the next 20-30 years?
If the FT went about this in a sensible and public way you might find much good will amongst exisitng shareholders and public benefactors. Private individuals might pledge/bequeath shares to the FT. You might get donations on top.
What about this for a prospect in 30 years time - the only professional football club to be owned and run by its supporters.
Scrub that. On second thoughts no. The idea of Lako, Bazzer and Step running LCFC is to horrible to contemplate!
Foxes_Trust
Active Member
Chandler - answers to points raised
Am I right in thinking that it owns about 5% of New Fox PLC? And am I also right in thinking that it raised most of the cash for its shareholding over a few months?
- We own just over 2% of the shares. Yes the first £100k was raised in a few months, with a further £30k invested over the following summer.
If both these points are true why doesn't the FT have a long term plan to become a major player in the club? The idea is not as crazy as it sounds.
- We do intend to make further investments in the club, trouble is we have struggled to raise even £20k in the last year
If you could buy around 5% (?) of the shares with just a few months fund raising how about trying to buy say between 0.5 - 1.0% per year over the next 20-30 years?
- As per above it is highly unlikely we would raise that level of cash unless many more City fans become members year on year & some local businesses provide sponsorship to cover costs (if you have any suggested companies you think would be worth approaching e-mail [email protected])
If the FT went about this in a sensible and public way you might find much good will amongst exisitng shareholders and public benefactors. Private individuals might pledge/bequeath shares to the FT. You might get donations on top.
- There are only 40 shareholders in total,. it is likely most of them will pass their holding on to their children. We would certainly appreciate donations and would welcome any suggestions that would encourage this to happen
What about this for a prospect in 30 years time - the only professional football club to be owned and run by its supporters.
- Around 6 Trusts already run professional clubs in England at this time, the FT objectives do not include trying to run the club itself, although we remain keen to have a fully fledged Non Exec role on the board.
Am I right in thinking that it owns about 5% of New Fox PLC? And am I also right in thinking that it raised most of the cash for its shareholding over a few months?
- We own just over 2% of the shares. Yes the first £100k was raised in a few months, with a further £30k invested over the following summer.
If both these points are true why doesn't the FT have a long term plan to become a major player in the club? The idea is not as crazy as it sounds.
- We do intend to make further investments in the club, trouble is we have struggled to raise even £20k in the last year
If you could buy around 5% (?) of the shares with just a few months fund raising how about trying to buy say between 0.5 - 1.0% per year over the next 20-30 years?
- As per above it is highly unlikely we would raise that level of cash unless many more City fans become members year on year & some local businesses provide sponsorship to cover costs (if you have any suggested companies you think would be worth approaching e-mail [email protected])
If the FT went about this in a sensible and public way you might find much good will amongst exisitng shareholders and public benefactors. Private individuals might pledge/bequeath shares to the FT. You might get donations on top.
- There are only 40 shareholders in total,. it is likely most of them will pass their holding on to their children. We would certainly appreciate donations and would welcome any suggestions that would encourage this to happen
What about this for a prospect in 30 years time - the only professional football club to be owned and run by its supporters.
- Around 6 Trusts already run professional clubs in England at this time, the FT objectives do not include trying to run the club itself, although we remain keen to have a fully fledged Non Exec role on the board.
Foxes_Trust
Active Member
Chandler said:
Yes - give us a day or two & I'll provide the current list
StroppyFox
New Member
Off the top of my head;
York City, (Ok they're conference now but weren't at the time)
Lincoln City
Chesterfield
Brentford
and two others who I can't for the life of me remember at the mo.
York City, (Ok they're conference now but weren't at the time)
Lincoln City
Chesterfield
Brentford
and two others who I can't for the life of me remember at the mo.
Keep the Faith
New Member
I think Bournemouth may be one of the others but not sure about the last one.
- Status
Championship
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Leicester | 44 | 94 |
| 2 | Leeds Utd | 45 | 90 |
| 3 | Ipswich | 44 | 90 |
| 4 | Southampton | 45 | 84 |
| 5 | Norwich City | 45 | 73 |
| 6 | West Brom | 45 | 72 |
| 7 | Hull City | 45 | 70 |
| 8 | Middlesbro | 45 | 66 |
| 9 | Coventry City | 44 | 64 |
| 10 | Preston | 44 | 63 |
| 11 | Bristol City | 45 | 62 |
| 12 | Cardiff City | 45 | 62 |
| 13 | Swansea City | 45 | 57 |
| 14 | Watford | 45 | 56 |
| 15 | Sunderland | 45 | 56 |
| 16 | Millwall | 45 | 56 |
| 17 | QPR | 45 | 53 |
| 18 | Stoke City | 45 | 53 |
| 19 | Blackburn | 45 | 50 |
| 20 | Sheffield W | 45 | 50 |
| 21 | Plymouth | 45 | 48 |
| 22 | Birmingham | 45 | 47 |
| 23 | Huddersfield | 45 | 45 |
| 24 | Rotherham Utd | 45 | 24 |
