What Are The Supporters Trust Really In This For?

[Godzilla]

We haven't offically got a website sub-group. I feel that it is extremely important to demonstrate to the attendees at tomorrow night's meeting that we have plans in hand to not only cover the administration costs of otib, but make a long-term healthy profit.

(greenun @ Jan 30 2006, 11:11 PM)

Interesting comments, Mr Tovey.

So, what are we really led to believe? As far as I'm aware;

1) The ST were given OTIB to maintain and moderate; in essence, to keep this strong community of fans together.

Therefore, why are they looking to benefit from it?

2) Covering the costs of running the forum will inevitably require sponsorship of the boards, and thus advertising. The more money they hope to make out of it, the more sponsorship and advertising required.

So therefore, why have the users of OTIB not been consulted over such decisions? Did the ST ever plan to let us know what their intentions were, and how they were going to turn the forum into a money making machine?

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel a bit unfomfortable with all this?

[Guest The Codfather 0312]

It's a littel forum.

If you, or others don't like it, make another one.

Can you do that ?

I don't like the way it has been done.

But what are YOU and OTHERS going to do about it ?

The people involved with the ST got up off their arses and got things moving.

If YOU or OTHERS have such a big problem with this, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT other than whinging.

I don't like it either tbh but there isn't anything I can do about it, I don't like some of the drivel they put on the Tv but I can't do anything about that apart from not watch it.

[Dastardly and Muttley]

(greenun @ Jan 30 2006, 11:11 PM)

Interesting comments, Mr Tovey.

So, what are we really led to believe? As far as I'm aware;

1) The ST were given OTIB to maintain and moderate; in essence, to keep this strong community of fans together.

Therefore, why are they looking to benefit from it?

2) Covering the costs of running the forum will inevitably require sponsorship of the boards, and thus advertising. The more money they hope to make out of it, the more sponsorship and advertising required.

So therefore, why have the users of OTIB not been consulted over such decisions? Did the ST ever plan to let us know what their intentions were, and how they were going to turn the forum into a money making machine?

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel a bit unfomfortable with all this?

With the attempted ban on advertising, it would look as if the ST were going to go down that route. I would suggest if this is the plan, that they at least consult with the fans - after all, it is us that the ST are trying to represent.

[cider head]

if that is the option then it sucks..

it goes back to the 'why were people not consulted'

as for doing something about it that is not an option for members but for the owners of otib

[WTFiGO!?!]

oh God I wish I lived in a perfect world.......make's me want to scream!!!

[Dastardly and Muttley]

You could make the subbers site the main forum or you could start a forum from scratch.

Your choice really.

or is it easier to moan ?

Out of interest, hoping not to offend anyone too much, check out the latest poll about OTIB with/without adverts....

Fan's Poll

[cider head]

You could make the subbers site the main forum or you could start a forum from scratch.

Your choice really.

or is it easier to moan ?

subbers site is not or never will be an option as a main bcfc forum

it has always been a kind of lifeboat site forum.

why is it when anything this club does in terms of shafting it's fans it's seen

as moaning when a few question it?

what's the point of a forum if sneaky stuff is not questioned

and it is not as though it is just one person questioning it

[Nibor]

This "little forum" has 20 times as many members as the trust.

It's a complete joke that they were able to take over the running of it with no consultation.

Noone wants to start splitting off into separate little forums, because none of the would be useful then. OTIB's strength is in it's large and diverse community and there is always going to be anger when a small group of people are able to dictate to others and do things cloak and dagger.

The reaction was entirely predictable, the ST must have expected it and have said as much, so you have to wonder why they went ahead. Now we see an express intent to profit from otib, which really goes against the grain for me. I wonder how much thought was given to turning SL's offer down? Not much I guess.

There were alternatives that would have been much more acceptable.

Nibor

[Dastardly and Muttley]

This "little forum" has 20 times as many members as the trust.

It's a complete joke that they were able to take over the running of it with no consultation.

Noone wants to start splitting off into separate little forums, because none of the would be useful then. OTIB's strength is in it's large and diverse community and there is always going to be anger when a small group of people are able to dictate to others and do things cloak and dagger.

The reaction was entirely predictable, the ST must have expected it and have said as much, so you have to wonder why they went ahead. Now we see an express intent to profit from otib, which really goes against the grain for me. I wonder how much thought was given to turning SL's offer down? Not much I guess.

There were alternatives that would have been much more acceptable.

Nibor

Totally agree, as I've said elsewhere I believe the way the Club and the ST have gone about this is totally wrong. Considering this is probably the ST's first major PR venture, it's been a bit of a disaster so far.

We need to know, as regular, daily users of this forum, what is going to happen to it?

- Are the ST intending to run OTIB as a profit-making venture as suggested elsewhere?

- Will there be adverts?

- If so, how intrusive will these adverts be? Pop-ups? Side-bar adverts similar to main site?

I'm sure the ST have been surprised by the response to what is in worldly terms, only a small issue. I hope lessons have been learnt about PR in the future.

[tompo]

My understanding is that there are costs involved in running this forum and that at some point the ST will have pay them.

There are several ways of raising the money that could be considered.

One is for the money to come from Trust funds. However, one of the aims of the Trust is to raise monies to purchase shares in the club. IMO (and it is only my opinion) I think that the majority of members would rather see their subscriptions, and any other monies raised, used for share purchase rather than funding this forum. I know that I would.

Another option is to seek sponsorship for the site in order to meet running costs but I guess that any sponsor would want to see some return for his investment.

A third option could be to introduce some form of low level advertising. There are several ways of doing this but I think that it should be as unobtrusive as possible.

The above is not a definitive list. There may well be other ways of raising revenue to make this forum self funding when the time comes and I am sure that they will all be considered in due course.

[Dastardly and Muttley]

There are several alternatives which could be considered.

One is for the money to come from Trust funds. However, one of the aims of the Trust is to raise monies to purchase shares in the club. IMO (and it is only my opinion) I think that the majority of members would rather see their subscriptions, and any other monies raised, used for share purchase rather than funding this forum. I know that I would.

How about asking? The supporters may want to help fund something that provides a service to several thousand BCFC supporters from all over the world. With all the STs members, I can't imagine that it would be more than 5/10p per month out of our membership fee anyway. (Yes, I am in the process of joining the ST.)

Another option is to seek sponsorship for the site in order to meet running costs but I guess that nay sponsor would want to see some return for his investment in some way.

A thirdr option could be to introduce some form of low level advertising. There are several ways of doing this but I think that it should be as inobtrusive as possible.

Define inobtrusive. Pop-ups? Side banners?

The above is not a definitive list. There may well be other ways of raising revenue to make this forum self funding when the time comes and I am sure that they will all be considered in due course.

Considered by who? The same people who considered the hand-over? I would hope that there will be more consultation on this occasion.

[Jay]

(greenun @ Jan 30 2006, 11:11 PM)

Interesting comments, Mr Tovey.

So, what are we really led to believe? As far as I'm aware;

1) The ST were given OTIB to maintain and moderate; in essence, to keep this strong community of fans together.

Therefore, why are they looking to benefit from it?

2) Covering the costs of running the forum will inevitably require sponsorship of the boards, and thus advertising. The more money they hope to make out of it, the more sponsorship and advertising required.

So therefore, why have the users of OTIB not been consulted over such decisions? Did the ST ever plan to let us know what their intentions were, and how they were going to turn the forum into a money making machine?

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel a bit unfomfortable with all this?

Let me set the record straight. The BCST is a charity / non-profit organisation. The use of the word 'profit' in Mr. Tovey's statement is incorrect. For six months, BCST will not be paying for the administration fee required (& well earnt) by Clik. After such time, the money needs to be raised. Monies raised through membership are to be used for such things as purchasing shares etc. Why divert funds from this to pay for otib when there are potential sponsors willing to cover the costs? If excess money is paid then this 'profit' would be entered in to the share purchase scheme or another appropriate scheme.

If you are concerned about the possibilty of a advertisement/banner appearing, then please suggest ways in which funds can be raised. As I have mentioned to many people today, the ST forum is designed for topics/discussions such as this. Please feel free to air your concerns & offer your suggestions there as well.

Some people have criticised the ST today but few have offered to help try & improve things constructively. The ST is made up of supporters who feel passionately for this club & want to make things work better.

[WTFiGO!?!]

Had I not known I wouldn't have noticed any difference in the functioning of the forum since the take over. The members haven't changed and its their posts that I notice.

[SE23Red]

Another option is to seek sponsorship for the site in order to meet running costs but I guess that any sponsor would want to see some return for his investment.

The most obvious choice for a sponsor is BCFC. I can understand why they don't want the administrative burden of this forum any more (Adam is too busy being a TV star ) but to sponsor this site and have regular links back to www.bcfc.premiumtv.co.uk would (a) drag a few more people over to the main site on a regular basis and (b) let them plug merchandise to a very targeted market.

I'm sure as a purely commercial venture it doesn't stack up for them, but they should also consider this to be a community scheme.

[tompo]

Considered by who? The same people who considered the hand-over? I would hope that there will be more consultation on this occasion.

I really can't comment on the possibility of adverising on the forum. For a start my definition of unobtrusive may be completely different to yours. I think your signature is too big but you probably don't. Can you see where I'm coming from on that one?

I would like to think that as a not inconsiderable amount of money is involved any sort of decison would not be taken until such time as the official board of the ST is elected. That should be in May and the election details will be posted shortly.

I am glad to hear that you are about to join the ST. I am sure that if you (or any other current or prospective member) could come along to at least one meeting you would get a very pleasant surprise. Apart from a warm welcome you will see that everything that the ST does is open and above board. There are no hidden agendas and most certainly no plans for world domination. Although you probably don't believe it right now, the ST does only want what is best for the club and fans.

Thinking about it would be even better if some of the Anti Trust brigade came to a meeting.

[Nibor]

But the actual fan base is 20 times that - prove me wrong o oracle

And? The relevance of this is what exactly? People who use the forum should get a say in what happens to it, is that too hard for you to understand.

Why - it's a little forum nothing else and nothing more, don't people have lives outside of this forum ?

Of course, but some people enjoy the forum and consider it important. Nice to see you broke 3k posts by the way, how's that life going?

And you would be willing to put yourself out to make them more acceptable I take it. Or just criticise from your armchair ?

I would indeed, however I was not given the option. I've actually done a bit of looking into it and it appears that with this site's traffice, a simple ad on the top of the page could generate several hundred pounds a month - enough to cover costs. The example I got was from using google adsense but I'm led to believe there are more profitable groups.

What precisely is your problem with people being unhappy about this cloak and dagger change?

Nibor

[Nibor]

I've no problem with people being unhappy with how things were done regarding the handover of this forum - I have my concerns as well,as you know.

I do have problems with people, such as yourself, who can't let go.

People who continue on and on and on until the other person gives up - thats you that is. Nobody wins and it becomes boring and whinging.

It is a tiny little forum, insignificant in the running or supporting of BCFC in the overall scheme of things.

Some people have got up off their arses and done something good for BCFC, others take the easy option and just whinge.

In fact most on here fall into that category - fantastic at how things should be, crap at doing it.

Well, noone forces you to read or respond to posts. Your actions seem to contradict your view that it's such an unimportant little forum.

I'd dispute that it's insignificant. It's a very important and useful source of information, it's the only way the supporters can actually discuss things in large numbers quickly and easily. I think many people, even those on the trust which was born here, would agree with that. I'm very uneasy that something I think is that important to the club has it's future decided by small groups of people in secret.

As for people just whinging and not doing, isn't that what you're doing? There's a difference between constructive criticism and whinging, and anyway you have absolutely no clue what I or any other poster actually does to help.

Nibor

[Swindon Hater]

Some people have got up off their arses and done something good for BCFC, others take the easy option and just whinge.

So what the ###### do you want us whingers do to?

Go down Ashton Gate with banners and protest against the forum takeover?

[tompo]

Well, noone forces you to read or respond to posts. Your actions seem to contradict your view that it's such an unimportant little forum.

I'd dispute that it's insignificant. It's a very important and useful source of information, it's the only way the supporters can actually discuss things in large numbers quickly and easily. I think many people, even those on the trust which was born here, would agree with that. I'm very uneasy that something I think is that important to the club has it's future decided by small groups of people in secret.

As for people just whinging and not doing, isn't that what you're doing? There's a difference between constructive criticism and whinging, and anyway you have absolutely no clue what I or any other poster actually does to help.

Nibor

Have to pull you up on one point.

No decisions are or have been taken in secret. Every meeting of the ST is open to everone to attend. If you choose not to belong to the ST not a problem, you would still be welcome. If you choose not to go then that is a different kettle of fish and it is wrong to blame those who do make an effort.

We live in a democracy but in my lifetime as far as I can recall there has only ever been one referendum. In every walk of life decisons are made by small groups of people. That appplies everywhere from Government downwards. Why do companies have boards of directors if not to make decisions? Do you honestly believe that they consult their shareholders every time a decision has to be made? Of course they don't because it is just not practical.

[cheshire_red]

This "little forum" has 20 times as many members as the trust.

It's a complete joke that they were able to take over the running of it with no consultation.

Noone wants to start splitting off into separate little forums, because none of the would be useful then. OTIB's strength is in it's large and diverse community and there is always going to be anger when a small group of people are able to dictate to others and do things cloak and dagger.

The reaction was entirely predictable, the ST must have expected it and have said as much, so you have to wonder why they went ahead. Now we see an express intent to profit from otib, which really goes against the grain for me. I wonder how much thought was given to turning SL's offer down? Not much I guess.

There were alternatives that would have been much more acceptable.

Nibor

Other alternatives, obviously the club felt there wasn't as it approached the ST, unless thay also approached the Supporters Club? RobboRed would know!

I was under the impression that the ST were in favour mainly for the increased publicity and links to the Trust website?

[Nibor]

Have to pull you up on one point.

No decisions are or have been taken in secret. Every meeting of the ST is open to everone to attend. If you choose not to belong to the ST not a problem, you would still be welcome. If you choose not to go then that is a different kettle of fish and it is wrong to blame those who do make an effort.

We live in a democracy but in my lifetime as far as I can recall there has only ever been one referendum. In every walk of life decisons are made by small groups of people. That appplies everywhere from Government downwards. Why do companies have boards of directors if not to make decisions? Do you honestly believe that they consult their shareholders every time a decision has to be made? Of course they don't because it is just not practical.

As I posted on a different thread, I am rarely in Bristol Monday through Friday. I don't choose not to go. Nor do many other forum users who are all over the world.

You Government analogy is miles off because they're elected representatives of everyone in the country. The people who made decisions about otib are unelected representatives of a group of less than 5% of the forum.

I'd suggest that the practicalities of boards and shareholders are irrelevant because it was entirely practical to put otib in the hands of clik and then have a nomination and vote process for new moderators, if indeed they were required.

Was any real serious consideration given by the ST to doing this? Or to consulting otib? Not one of the ST people who've posted here have suggested there was at all.

Nibor

[Colemanballs]

As I posted on a different thread, I am rarely in Bristol Monday through Friday. I don't choose not to go. Nor do many other forum users who are all over the world.

You Government analogy is miles off because they're elected representatives of everyone in the country. The people who made decisions about otib are unelected representatives of a group of less than 5% of the forum.

I'd suggest that the practicalities of boards and shareholders are irrelevant because it was entirely practical to put otib in the hands of clik and then have a nomination and vote process for new moderators, if indeed they were required.

Was any real serious consideration given by the ST to doing this? Or to consulting otib? Not one of the ST people who've posted here have suggested there was at all.

Nibor

I'm sorry but where does your belief that members of the forum have any divine right to anything spring from? We have all had the use of a service provided by the club gratis. The club has decided to no longer provide that service. The ST has agreed to take over the responsibility of providing that service to you at no little cost to themselves (in terms of time, effort and risk) and all you can do is whinge. If I were an ST committee member and I was seeing the ludicrous abuse generated by the likes of you I would probably now be saying let's ditch the forum. Where would you be able to post this nonsense then?

[Nibor]

I'm sorry but where does your belief that members of the forum have any divine right to anything spring from? We have all had the use of a service provided by the club gratis. The club has decided to no longer provide that service. The ST has agreed to take over the responsibility of providing that service to you at no little cost to themselves (in terms of time, effort and risk) and all you can do is whinge. If I were an ST committee member and I was seeing the ludicrous abuse generated by the likes of you I would probably now be saying let's ditch the forum. Where would you be able to post this nonsense then?

Feel free to provide an example of any ludicrous abuse I've posted.

I've never claimed a divine right to anything - I believe that the entire community on otib should have had a say in it's future. What is fairer or more reasonable than that?

Nibor

[Colemanballs]

Feel free to provide an example of any ludicrous abuse I've posted.

I've never claimed a divine right to anything - I believe that the entire community on otib should have had a say in it's future. What is fairer or more reasonable than that?

Nibor

Your entire stance on this issue has been ludicrous and generally abusive (in the sense that it has been generally denigrating the motives of the ST) IMHO.

Why should the entire community on OTIB have any right in the say of it's future? Would that community be happy to pay for it's upkeep? Would that community indemnify the trustees were they to be sued for some defamatory post made on the forum?

[Nibor]

Your entire stance on this issue has been ludicrous and generally abusive (in the sense that it has been generally denigrating the motives of the ST) IMHO.

I'd say it's been questioning the motives and as yet doing so hasn't provided any answers but thanks for your opinion.

Why should the entire community on OTIB have any right in the say of it's future? Would that community be happy to pay for it's upkeep? Would that community indemnify the trustees were they to be sued for some defamatory post made on the forum?

The community will end up generating revenue for it's upkeep through advertising, that's the intent expressed by the ST.

There's no need for any indemnities providing you have experienced people like clik running and moderating the site.

The ST aren't going to pay for the upkeep or indemnify anyone so what's your point?

Nibor

[Colemanballs]

I'd say it's been questioning the motives and as yet doing so hasn't provided any answers but thanks for your opinion.

Why, you're welcome!

The community will end up generating revenue for it's upkeep through advertising, that's the intent expressed by the ST.

'Will end up'. And in the meantime?

There's no need for any indemnities providing you have experienced people like clik running and moderating the site.

Do you think Clik would be prepared to run the site with a bunch of moderators democratically elected by the likes of Legend City Man, Malone, Dr Faustus, etc. ? Let's ask Tom shall we?

The ST aren't going to pay for the upkeep or indemnify anyone so what's your point?

Nibor

Um. if something libellous is posted on the forum tomorrow who do you think might be liable in law?

[Nibor]

You've not read alot of posts Colemanballs.

The club are paying it for 6 months. Even without that, Ad revenue for a site with this level of activity would be enough to cover running costs and to implement it takes a couple of hours admin work and it starts generating revenue immediately.

I doubt clik would entertain a totally open popularity contest style vote and that wasn't what I was suggesting. Really it's quite easy... clik come up with some criteria to limit who can be nominated, people nominate, vote... clik approve job done. Bit more likely to get support from the large part of otib than the way it's just been done I reckon.

clik are ultimately liable I believe since they publish it. My experience in the past has been that as long as you disclaim responsiblity for the views of users, make that clear in the T&Cs they sign up to, and make reasonable efforts to take down anything that breaks the rules quickly then there's little risk. Clik host other forums so I find it hard to believe that would be an issue for them.

Nibor

[Colemanballs]

You've not read alot of posts Colemanballs.

I beg to differ. I may not post a lot but I'm an avid reader...

The club are paying it for 6 months. Even without that, Ad revenue for a site with this level of activity would be enough to cover running costs and to implement it takes a couple of hours admin work and it starts generating revenue immediately.

Do you not think that the fact that the club agreed to pay for the site for 6 months might have had some stipulations attached? I have no idea but I suspect they'd want something for their cash. If only making money from 'hits' on the internet was that straightforward there would be an awful lot of dot com businesses still in, er, business. Maybe you ought to be offering your services as a consultant.

I doubt clik would entertain a totally open popularity contest style vote and that wasn't what I was suggesting. Really it's quite easy... clik come up with some criteria to limit who can be nominated, people nominate, vote... clik approve job done. Bit more likely to get support from the large part of otib than the way it's just been done I reckon.

'I doubt' doesn't come into it. Unless they're nuts there is no way they would go for an open contest. The only sensible thing for them to do would be to ensure that moderators were people who would share in the hurt if something went horribly wrong.

clik are ultimately liable I believe since they publish it. My experience in the past has been that as long as you disclaim responsiblity for the views of users, make that clear in the T&Cs they sign up to, and make reasonable efforts to take down anything that breaks the rules quickly then there's little risk. Clik host other forums so I find it hard to believe that would be an issue for them.

Clik might be ultimately liable but so would each and every member of the ST on a 'joint and several' basis. That means that each and every one of them are risking losing their house and / or everything they own just so that ar######h*les can whinge about them. Not sure I'd want to risk it myself but if you want to put yourself in the firing line, you'd have my vote!

[Nibor]

Actually I was quite surprised by the amount of revenue you can get from ads, I too thought the bottom had dropped out of that a long time ago and I was sceptical that otib could be self sufficient. Having looked into it I was wrong.

There's some info here if you're interested. otib's traffic is I believe significantly higher than any of the examples quoted on there.

As for the legal stuff, I don't know. I would be utterly amazed if you were correct that the ST members were individually liable though.

Nibor

[Guest CityDuke14]

Actually I was quite surprised by the amount of revenue you can get from ads, I too thought the bottom had dropped out of that a long time ago and I was sceptical that otib could be self sufficient. Having looked into it I was wrong.

There's some info here if you're interested. otib's traffic is I believe significantly higher than any of the examples quoted on there.

As for the legal stuff, I don't know. I would be utterly amazed if you were correct that the ST members were individually liable though.

Nibor

Prepare to be amazed!

[tompo]

As I posted on a different thread, I am rarely in Bristol Monday through Friday. I don't choose not to go. Nor do many other forum users who are all over the world.

You Government analogy is miles off because they're elected representatives of everyone in the country. The people who made decisions about otib are unelected representatives of a group of less than 5% of the forum.

I'd suggest that the practicalities of boards and shareholders are irrelevant because it was entirely practical to put otib in the hands of clik and then have a nomination and vote process for new moderators, if indeed they were required.

Was any real serious consideration given by the ST to doing this? Or to consulting otib? Not one of the ST people who've posted here have suggested there was at all.

Nibor

Two regular attendees at ST meetings travel from Swindon and Thatcham but that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that no decisions were or have ever been taken in secret as you implied.

If we are talking percentages what percentage of the 4000 members of the OTIB forum are actually bothered by the change over?

As far as I can tell, apart from the new mods there are no other changes. Why not give it a fair go and if after a trial period you are still not happy raise the matter again.

[Guest]

Clik are ulitmately responsable for content upon a site hosted by them.

I would go into the merits of the Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd case, but instead read on

http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm

[Guest swindlered]

You've not read alot of posts Colemanballs.

The club are paying it for 6 months. Even without that, Ad revenue for a site with this level of activity would be enough to cover running costs and to implement it takes a couple of hours admin work and it starts generating revenue immediately.

I doubt clik would entertain a totally open popularity contest style vote and that wasn't what I was suggesting. Really it's quite easy... clik come up with some criteria to limit who can be nominated, people nominate, vote... clik approve job done. Bit more likely to get support from the large part of otib than the way it's just been done I reckon.

clik are ultimately liable I believe since they publish it. My experience in the past has been that as long as you disclaim responsiblity for the views of users, make that clear in the T&Cs they sign up to, and make reasonable efforts to take down anything that breaks the rules quickly then there's little risk. Clik host other forums so I find it hard to believe that would be an issue for them.

Nibor

Libel law applies to the poster for making the comment, Clik for hosting the site and then the owners of the site. Any one of the three could be sued if a libellous comment was made.

[bucksred]

You could make the subbers site the main forum or you could start a forum from scratch.

Your choice really.

or is it easier to moan ?

I use all the City forums, Rivals, Sub, and this one. This is the main one. Why should I have to leave/change/put up with?

Or is this forum an elite? One a small group are allowed to subscribe to?

[tompo]

I use all the City forums, Rivals, Sub, and this one. This is the main one. Why should I have to leave/change/put up with?

Or is this forum an elite? One a small group are allowed to subscribe to?

This is the main City forum and should remain so. There is absolutely no suggestion of elitism.

Apart from the changes to the moderators and oviously the fact that the ST have taken on responsibilty for running it, there are no ther changes. The forum is still free to use by all members of the Bristol City fans community.

The furore seems to be dying down now and I would like to think that people who use the forum give both the mods and the ST as well as the forum a fair go. The changeover was made as seamlessly as possible but if, after say a few weeks or even months, the way the forum is being administered is a problem then feel free to raise the issue again. Just give it a fair go folks.

[sephjnr]

Of course, we could always follow the UKFF's example by asking for an annual donation.

Even a nominal donation per year by a small amount of Otib regulars would keep the forum in clover for a while, and -at a pinch- provide surplus funding towards the ST. Why, you ask? I ask 'why not'? All that's needed is to find more benefits for the forum.

[jimtastic]

1) The ST has got to cover the costs, unless someone here is willing to fork out hosting fees etc out of their own pockets?

2) Once the ad system has been implemented, why shouldn't the ST take opportunities to boost their coffers off of the back of it??

3) Why have the users of OTIB not been consulted? How would that work then? Would everyone be made a mod? The club have handed the site over to an official body which exists for the best interests of the club. Sounds like an incredibly sensible idea to me...

4) Are people who voted "as it is now" on the poll proposing that they're going to pay for the ongoing running of the site? Thanks guys!

5) "when a small group of people are able to dictate to others and do things cloak and dagger."

By "small group" I presume you mean mods and admins which you'd get on every forum. Unless, of course, you're making the ridiculous suggestion that the forum goes unmoderated?

6) Some comments:

"It's a very important and useful source of information"

And how has that changed exactly?

"It's the only way the supporters can actually discuss things in large numbers quickly and easily."

And how has that changed exactly?

"I think many people, even those on the trust which was born here, would agree with that."

I'm sure they would. Again, what's changed?

"I'm very uneasy that something I think is that important to the club has it's future decided by small groups of people in secret."

Just because you're passionate about BCFC, it doesn't mean that you're best placed to act in its best interest. Again, BCFC have handed the forum to a group who are dedicated to the well-being of the club. I'm baffled as to what else you wanted them to do? Did you want SL to hand the forum over to a random group of fans (and fans, as evidenced by this thread, with massive commercial naivety?)

7) Colemanballs - great post. There seem to be a minority of "mini Chairmen" who think that they should be running the club due to the fact that they've bought a season ticket. What makes me laugh is that while they're quite happy to blow hot air about ads, membership fees etc, there are no decent proposals for alternatives. It's almost as if they assume that the forum will just continue to run regardless.

8) If you tot up all of the sigs in a decent thread, you'd probably be looking at about ten times the download size that any ads would generate.

9) With regard to the GoogleSense, performance varies according to the market sector which the site sits in. It's not just a question of plonking them up there and waiting for the cash to roll in... I'd be terrified to give control of this forum to someone whose knowledge of the online ad market is based on one small thread (which is over 18 months old) in a random forum.

10) In answer to the original question "What are the ST really in this for?"

To quote Nibor: "It's a very important and useful source of information, it's the only way the supporters can actually discuss things in large numbers quickly and easily. I think many people, even those on the trust which was born here, would agree with that."

Sounds like exactly the kind of thing that the ST should be promoting.

[tompo]

10) In answer to the original question "What are the ST really in this for?"

To quote Nibor: "It's a very important and useful source of information, it's the only way the supporters can actually discuss things in large numbers quickly and easily. I think many people, even those on the trust which was born here, would agree with that."

Sounds like exactly the kind of thing that the ST should be promoting.

Jimtastic

Congratulations on probably the best post I have read on several threads covering this topic. I think you have summarised the situation excellently.

I think that some of the criticism of the ST, on this and other forums has been completely unfounded. Much of it appears to be generated by people who have either no real interest in this forum or appear to have issues with members of the Trust's working party and not the Trust itself. I also get the impression that there is perhaps a small element of City fans who would like to see the Trust fail. I hope I am wrong on that one though.

At the moment the Trust is still very much in its infancy and I personally cannot wait until the elections have taken place and the incomiming board get on with the job running the ship without the constraints of being classed as simply a Working Party or unelected.

I can assure everyone that as far as the ST is concerned that there are no hidden agendas. I also cannot reiterate enough that anyone and everyone is more than welcome to attend the regular meetings of the ST's working party. Not only that but their participation in discussions on any topic would also be welcome.

[RedTop]

Let me set the record straight. The BCST is a charity / non-profit organisation. The use of the word 'profit' in Mr. Tovey's statement is incorrect. For six months, BCST will not be paying for the administration fee required (& well earnt) by Clik. After such time, the money needs to be raised. Monies raised through membership are to be used for such things as purchasing shares etc. Why divert funds from this to pay for otib when there are potential sponsors willing to cover the costs? If excess money is paid then this 'profit' would be entered in to the share purchase scheme or another appropriate scheme.

If you are concerned about the possibilty of a advertisement/banner appearing, then please suggest ways in which funds can be raised. As I have mentioned to many people today, the ST forum is designed for topics/discussions such as this. Please feel free to air your concerns & offer your suggestions there as well.

Some people have criticised the ST today but few have offered to help try & improve things constructively. The ST is made up of supporters who feel passionately for this club & want to make things work better.

Jay, correct me if I am wrong but that is not quite my understanding of it.

Surely, it is money raised above the first £2.50 per month or £30 a year of each membership fee that is to be used for buying shares?

If that is the case, would it be possible to ask what that first £2.50pm of each membership[ fee is going to be used for?

I currently pay £1 a month (once my newly sent off subscription is processed) and I chose this level because while I wish to support the ST, I will not be happy for my money to be put into a pot to buy shares until I have seen the organisation running long enough democratically and seen enough of its actions to be convinced that it is the right organisation to represent my views through share ownership.

It seems to me that financially supporting the forum might be a valid way of spending some of the ST's subscriptions, given that it actively helps to fulfil at least three of the ST's five aims, namely:

* Encourage through its activities increased support for the Club

* Help the Club position itself as a hub of the community

* Represent the fans in dialogue with the Club

As a way of communicating with a significant number of fans, of allowing fans to make their views known so that the ST understands the supporters that it represents and of encouraging more people to become more involved in the club, the forum seems a valuable asset. Given this, if the costs are in the region suggested elsewhere on the forum, it seems a perfectly valid use of members' money, especially as the ST agreed to take it on as a service to fans. Also, given that the ST took over without consultation and without people being allowed to explore alternative options, it is surely not unreasonable to expect the ST to fund it.

Notwithstanding my support for the ST and my admiration of those of you who are at the forefront of it, I have a problem with the principle of using the forum as a way to make money on top of any forum-related admin costs which would then go into shares. For a start there is the perception - just as the club has been criticised for seeing ordinary fans as little more than a way to make money, the ST could face the same way - of using the fans it seeks to represent. But also, as this is the club's principal forum and as it is seen as the 'official' forum, I am not quite sure about the validity of using profit from all fans - some of whom might use the forum to might actively disagree with the views of the ST, as indeed they should be allowed to - to increase the power of the ST through share ownership.

If you wish to encourage all fans to use the forum, which is my understanding, it then seems unfair to use money made off their backs to push the ST's own views even if they completely contradict those of people who want to use the forum. You leave them with the alternative either of having to exclude themselves from discussion on the club's principle forum, or of effectively helping to unwillingly fund a cause to which they are opposed. This seems a tad inappropriate, to say the least.

Therefore, if the ST decides to take an option involving advertising rather than bearing the cost through money raised by subscription then it seems to me that in order to remain fair any excess funds should go to a cause that all City fans woul agree on, perhaps in the form of a donation to the club itself.

[Nibor]

Clik are ulitmately responsable for content upon a site hosted by them.

I would go into the merits of the Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd case, but instead read on

http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm

Thanks Tom. Interesting read and appears to be much as I thought - the publisher needs to take "reasonable care" ie the rules, moderation and T&Cs, and needs to remove defamatory content once put on notice.

Two regular attendees at ST meetings travel from Swindon and Thatcham but that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that no decisions were or have ever been taken in secret as you implied.

I'm talking about alot further than that but it's beside the point. The large part of the users of this board were kept in the dark about the fact that decisions were being made and had no opportunity to input into them unless they by chance attended a meeting of an organisation that had nothing to do with this board. That's in secret in my book.

1) The ST has got to cover the costs, unless someone here is willing to fork out hosting fees etc out of their own pockets.

2) Once the ad system has been implemented, why shouldn't the ST take opportunities to boost their coffers off of the back of it??

3) Why have the users of OTIB not been consulted? How would that work then? Would everyone be made a mod? The club have handed the site over to an official body which exists for the best interests of the club. Sounds like an incredibly sensible idea to me...

4) Are people who voted "as it is now" on the poll proposing that they're going to pay for the ongoing running of the site? Thanks guys!

5) "when a small group of people are able to dictate to others and do things cloak and dagger."

By "small group" I presume you mean mods and admins which you'd get on every forum. Unless, of course, you're making the ridiculous suggestion that the forum goes unmoderated?

6) Some comments:

"It's a very important and useful source of information"

And how has that changed exactly?

"It's the only way the supporters can actually discuss things in large numbers quickly and easily."

And how has that changed exactly?

"I think many people, even those on the trust which was born here, would agree with that."

I'm sure they would. Again, what's changed?

"I'm very uneasy that something I think is that important to the club has it's future decided by small groups of people in secret."

Just because you're passionate about BCFC, it doesn't mean that you're best placed to act in its best interest. Again, BCFC have handed the forum to a group who are dedicated to the well-being of the club. I'm baffled as to what else you wanted them to do? Did you want SL to hand the forum over to a random group of fans (and fans, as evidenced by this thread, with massive commercial naivety?)

7) Colemanballs - great post. There seem to be a minority of "mini Chairmen" who think that they should be running the club due to the fact that they've bought a season ticket. What makes me laugh is that while they're quite happy to blow hot air about ads, membership fees etc, there are no decent proposals for alternatives. It's almost as if they assume that the forum will just continue to run regardless.

8) If you tot up all of the sigs in a decent thread, you'd probably be looking at about ten times the download size that any ads would generate.

9) With regard to the GoogleSense, performance varies according to the market sector which the site sits in. It's not just a question of plonking them up there and waiting for the cash to roll in... I'd be terrified to give control of this forum to someone whose knowledge of the online ad market is based on one small thread (which is over 18 months old) in a random forum.

10) In answer to the original question "What are the ST really in this for?"

To quote Nibor: "It's a very important and useful source of information, it's the only way the supporters can actually discuss things in large numbers quickly and easily. I think many people, even those on the trust which was born here, would agree with that."

Sounds like exactly the kind of thing that the ST should be promoting.

1&2) No quarrel with that really.

3) I think that the clubs intention to remove funding for otib and what to do with it could have been discussed on here and suggestions sought BEFORE the club made a decision.

4) The point was already made in the thread below that poll that there was an option missing.

5) By small group I mean the trust working party and SteveL.

6) That was in response to cynic saying this was an insignificant little forum, I didn't suggest that the ST running it changes that.

7) No, as I've said many times I think it should have been run by clik really. I've never suggested I was best placed to act, far from it, just that I was unhappy that it was possible for a group of people to take over the running of the forum without consultation or discussion. There are some proposals about alternatives, you've probably missed them.

8) Yep I agree, I'm not personally bothered by ads since the club removing funding makes them a necessary evil.

9) That isn't the only place I looked, it was one example. I have also got some information from colleagues who still run websites with adsense and their figures seem to be reasonably consistent with those on the thread. The problem with getting hard figures is that it's unclear even to the people who make money from it how click through rate and the source of the ads affects income. The adtech network is supposedly better revenue than adsense but you get less targeted adverts and less filtering control, it also serves those irritating rollover ones.

10) Fine by me in principle I made it quite clear that I only object to the lack of discussion and consultation before decisions were made.

I've never had an anti Trust agenda or wanted them to fail. I don't think I'd have had much objection to them running this forum had there been an open discussion about it on here before we were presented with a fait accompli.

Nibor

[Milo]

Due to ill health in my family I have temporarily taken a back-seat as chair of the ST with Stu Rogers, the vice chair, currently fulfilling that role. The time constraints I am under have meant that I have not read all the posts aimed at the Supporters Trust, only this thread. However, I was involved in the decision to accept the running of otib and would like to make the following points in response primarily to Nibor's comments:

1/ Cloak and Dagger

The ST is a limited company. Its shareholders are its members. Its members vote one-member-one-vote on who runs it. It is therefore democratic. It equally has a responsibility as a professionally run business to respect the views and requests of other businesses that interact with it. We were requested to keep discussions related to this transaction off of forums by the Club. Had we ignored their request we would have been unprofessional and would have immediately damaged our most important third party relationship.

We therefore respected that request. Meetings continue to be open to all and this topic was discussed openly in those meetings.

2/ Other Options Considered

All options were considered. For a period of time, I would argue that the consensus view was against taking on otib. Only following detailed conversations with Club and Clik was the decision taken by a majority (but not unanimous) vote to take on otib for an initial 6 month period when options would be reviewed.

I met with Clik at their offices to discuss options. At the time of that meeting the outcome was not known. We discussed what might happen if the ST did not take on the forum. Clik did not put themselves forward as an option to run it independently.

3/ Consulting otib Members

Hopefully I've made it clear why consulting otib members was not possible before the decision was made. Although I've had to miss the last two meetings I'm convinced that otib members will be consulted going forward.

4/ Profit

Clik invest a considerable amount of time managing this forum and therefore incur costs. These costs need to be covered and that it is one of the primary reasons why a 6 month 'trial' was agreed. Options for covering these costs are many and varied. Should income exceed costs and a surplus is generated the money will ultimately go into ST coffers where all surplus funds make their way back to the Football Club by way of share purchase. If the consensus opinion is that the ST shouldn't make a surplus out of otib, or that any surplus should be used for something else then as a democratic organisation the ST will of course go with the consensus.

Equally, if the consensus is that otib should have no sponsors, no membership fee and no source of income this will be factored in at the end of the 6 month period. I suspect that my vote would then be to relinquish responsibility for running otib as my opinion is that ST members, many of whom do not use the forum, would prefer their money to be used on the Football Club rather than subsidising non-ST members use of a forum.

To re-iterate, due to my present circumstances I am expressing a personal view here only.

[SE23Red]

Miles,

Thanks for taking the time to go through this point-by-point in detail.

I've cut 1-3 as I broadly agree with what you are saying and take on board the confidentiality requested by the club - don't make it a habit if you want to be seen as being independent of them though!

The following section did interest me as I think it highlights the concerns of some on here who are not members of the ST and cannot attend meetings in Bristol (the SE23 gives a clue that I fit into this category!)

4/ Profit

Clik invest a considerable amount of time managing this forum and therefore incur costs. These costs need to be covered and that it is one of the primary reasons why a 6 month 'trial' was agreed. Options for covering these costs are many and varied. Should income exceed costs and a surplus is generated the money will ultimately go into ST coffers where all surplus funds make their way back to the Football Club by way of share purchase. If the consensus opinion is that the ST shouldn't make a surplus out of otib, or that any surplus should be used for something else then as a democratic organisation the ST will of course go with the consensus.

Equally, if the consensus is that otib should have no sponsors, no membership fee and no source of income this will be factored in at the end of the 6 month period. I suspect that my vote would then be to relinquish responsibility for running otib as my opinion is that ST members, many of whom do not use the forum, would prefer their money to be used on the Football Club rather than subsidising non-ST members use of a forum.

You talk a lot about consensus and the ST being democratic. As this is not intended to be a forum only for the use of ST members how do you propose to make sure that the voice of the majority of users of this board are heard (i.e. those who are not members of the ST)? The passage in bold highlights your concern for ST members who are not forum users, how about the forum users who are not ST members?

[jimtastic]

Thanks Tom. Interesting read and appears to be much as I thought - the publisher needs to take "reasonable care" ie the rules, moderation and T&Cs, and needs to remove defamatory content once put on notice.

I'm talking about alot further than that but it's beside the point. The large part of the users of this board were kept in the dark about the fact that decisions were being made and had no opportunity to input into them unless they by chance attended a meeting of an organisation that had nothing to do with this board. That's in secret in my book.

1&2) No quarrel with that really.

3) I think that the clubs intention to remove funding for otib and what to do with it could have been discussed on here and suggestions sought BEFORE the club made a decision.

4) The point was already made in the thread below that poll that there was an option missing.

5) By small group I mean the trust working party and SteveL.

6) That was in response to cynic saying this was an insignificant little forum, I didn't suggest that the ST running it changes that.

7) No, as I've said many times I think it should have been run by clik really. I've never suggested I was best placed to act, far from it, just that I was unhappy that it was possible for a group of people to take over the running of the forum without consultation or discussion. There are some proposals about alternatives, you've probably missed them.

8) Yep I agree, I'm not personally bothered by ads since the club removing funding makes them a necessary evil.

9) That isn't the only place I looked, it was one example. I have also got some information from colleagues who still run websites with adsense and their figures seem to be reasonably consistent with those on the thread. The problem with getting hard figures is that it's unclear even to the people who make money from it how click through rate and the source of the ads affects income. The adtech network is supposedly better revenue than adsense but you get less targeted adverts and less filtering control, it also serves those irritating rollover ones.

10) Fine by me in principle I made it quite clear that I only object to the lack of discussion and consultation before decisions were made.

I've never had an anti Trust agenda or wanted them to fail. I don't think I'd have had much objection to them running this forum had there been an open discussion about it on here before we were presented with a fait accompli.

Nibor

The ST are fans and forum users alike. They are merely clubbed together into a formal, official group. Made perfect sense to me (and to you, by what you've said above) to hand the forum over to them. If they'd handed over the forum to the Gas or a porn company, I might understand your argument a bit more, but this isn't a bad decision!

If you want a say in the future running of the forum, the answer's clear - join the ST! It's not like they're enemies or anything.

I might be really wide of the mark on this (and apologies if I am), but tracking through your previous posts, I'm starting to suspect that a lot of this boils down to that you'd have quite liked the opportunity to become a mod...

Erk! Forum cynicism is contageous!

[Nibor]

The ST are fans and forum users alike. They are merely clubbed together into a formal, official group. Made perfect sense to me (and to you, by what you've said above) to hand the forum over to them. If they'd handed over the forum to the Gas or a porn company, I might understand your argument a bit more, but this isn't a bad decision!

If you want a say in the future running of the forum, the answer's clear - join the ST! It's not like they're enemies or anything.

I'd much prefer that this forum was independent and it simply irritates me that noone was given a chance to say so. That irritation is directed at SteveL as much as it is the ST working party. I think when the club asked for it all to be kept under wraps the ST should have told SteveL no thanks, consult the users.

I might be really wide of the mark on this (and apologies if I am), but tracking through your previous posts, I'm starting to suspect that a lot of this boils down to the fact that you'd have quite liked the opportunity to become a mod...

You are miles wide of the mark. If you've tracked through my posts you'll note the two places I've said that I definitely wouldn't want to do that. I've done moderating before and it isn't fun.

This whole thing isn't a dig at the trust, that's not why I have posted what I have. I think otib is important and I am concerned about it's future.

It has seemed to me that in the last 6-12 months this board has fragmented into a few little cliques, which is bad. There had always been an element of this in the past but it seems to me to have gotten worse. I don't think it's intentional, but it has happened.

Like it or not, the ST can appear to be one of those cliques, let me re-iterate NOT INTENTIONALLY. Handing control to one group will alienate some others in my opinion, and what you will end up with is a forum that draws a less diverse crowd and I think that is ultimately bad for otib in the long term. That's why I would have preferred it was independent and moderated by those selected from the forum as a whole.

Milo

None of this is directed at any of you guys personally - I just want to make that clear since some seem to think I have an axe to grind, this is not the case. I respect the effort you put in and wish you success. I haven't signed up yet but I will do nearer the time you're ready to go.

I'm glad to hear that you did consider other options, what I'm not clear on is why the trust felt that them running otib was best for otib.

I appreciate that you were asked to keep it confidential and that the trust is democratic. In reply I'd say that when the majority of otib don't know that a decision is being made they don't have the option to vote. I think a better course would have been to persuade SteveL to open up the debate wider than it was.

Nibor

[Milo]

Miles,

Thanks for taking the time to go through this point-by-point in detail.

I've cut 1-3 as I broadly agree with what you are saying and take on board the confidentiality requested by the club - don't make it a habit if you want to be seen as being independent of them though!

The following section did interest me as I think it highlights the concerns of some on here who are not members of the ST and cannot attend meetings in Bristol (the SE23 gives a clue that I fit into this category!)

You talk a lot about consensus and the ST being democratic. As this is not intended to be a forum only for the use of ST members how do you propose to make sure that the voice of the majority of users of this board are heard (i.e. those who are not members of the ST)? The passage in bold highlights your concern for ST members who are not forum users, how about the forum users who are not ST members?

While decisions on what the ST does will be made by officials elected by its members, the ST wants to be representative of all City fans. We obviously hope to get every City fan joining up and accept that this is unlikely. This forum is a good place for the ST to take views from all fans whether ST members or not. As such, it was one of the main reasons that we wanted to keep it going, have involvement with it, encourage debate, seek views of non-ST members etc. By doing this, in time, we aim to convince more and more fans of the worth of the ST so that more and more join up and add more and more weight to the strength of fans' views.

[SE23Red]

While decisions on what the ST does will be made by officials elected by its members, the ST wants to be representative of all City fans. We obviously hope to get every City fan joining up and accept that this is unlikely. This forum is a good place for the ST to take views from all fans whether ST members or not. As such, it was one of the main reasons that we wanted to keep it going, have involvement with it, encourage debate, seek views of non-ST members etc. By doing this, in time, we aim to convince more and more fans of the worth of the ST so that more and more join up and add more and more weight to the strength of fans' views.

So decisions on making this a revenue generating site will be made by the committee of the ST?

[Milo]

Milo

None of this is directed at any of you guys personally - I just want to make that clear since some seem to think I have an axe to grind, this is not the case. I respect the effort you put in and wish you success. I haven't signed up yet but I will do nearer the time you're ready to go.

I'm glad to hear that you did consider other options, what I'm not clear on is why the trust felt that them running otib was best for otib.

I appreciate that you were asked to keep it confidential and that the trust is democratic. In reply I'd say that when the majority of otib don't know that a decision is being made they don't have the option to vote. I think a better course would have been to persuade SteveL to open up the debate wider than it was.

Nibor

Thanks for your clarification.

I think the view was taken that otib would not alter significantly but would at least keep going. As such this would be a major benefit to otib. Also, as it's run by a fans organisation, fans get to have a say on how it progresses. I cannot see that there has been a significant change impacting on otib users initially and should changes take place in the future we can collectively make decisions on how it goes.

As one of the most eloquent and reasoned posters on the forum, it would be great if you could get involved with such decisions as and when they materialise.

So decisions on making this a revenue generating site will be made by the committee of the ST?

Democratically elected members will make the decision after seeking the views of fans who use the forum and ST members.

[SE23Red]

Democratically elected members will make the decision after seeking the views of fans who use the forum and ST members.

I think that's what I said?!

[jimtastic]

I'd much prefer that this forum was independent and it simply irritates me that noone was given a chance to say so. That irritation is directed at SteveL as much as it is the ST working party. I think when the club asked for it all to be kept under wraps the ST should have told SteveL no thanks, consult the users.

But if it was independent, it would still need some sort of group (with company status) overseeing it. ST is ideal and any City fan can join up to make their voice heard (or contact the ST - I'm sure they're not closed to non-member views).

You are miles wide of the mark. If you've tracked through my posts you'll note the two places I've said that I definitely wouldn't want to do that. I've done moderating before and it isn't fun.

I was wrong then, apologies

[Guest CityDuke14]

Ignore,too tired.

[lukejones2]

Surely, it is money raised above the first £2.50 per month or £30 a year of each membership fee that is to be used for buying shares?

If that is the case, would it be possible to ask what that first £2.50pm of each membership[ fee is going to be used for?

[text removed]

Therefore, if the ST decides to take an option involving advertising rather than bearing the cost through money raised by subscription then it seems to me that in order to remain fair any excess funds should go to a cause that all City fans woul agree on, perhaps in the form of a donation to the club itself.

As everything else seems to have been answered (correct me if I am wrong) I would just like to cklarify that any fee above £2.50 paid by a member is indeed placed into a dedicated share "fund". This will be used to purchase shares in the club.

The £2.50 and the £1 memberships will be used to further the Trust's objectives and for things like admin/postage costs in order to ensure the correct and proper running of the ST. All funds earned by the ST will ultimately be passed back to BCFC in the form of share purchase/donations/events which will raise their profile.

Given my last sentence that all surpluses would go back into the club (the ST is a not for profit oganisation as governed by its constitution and regulated by the FSA), My personal view is currently that any surpluses made on any discreet and unobtrusive advertising should go the way of the football club albeit through the ST. It is important to point out that this is something which is a way off yet and requires much more discussion and consultation.

[England]

(greenun @ Jan 30 2006, 11:11 PM)

An eloquent young man using such a poor use of English to create the thread title?

[M_Porter]

Let me set the record straight. The BCST is a charity / non-profit organisation. The use of the word 'profit' in Mr. Tovey's statement is incorrect. For six months, BCST will not be paying for the administration fee required (& well earnt) by Clik. After such time, the money needs to be raised. Monies raised through membership are to be used for such things as purchasing shares etc. Why divert funds from this to pay for otib when there are potential sponsors willing to cover the costs? If excess money is paid then this 'profit' would be entered in to the share purchase scheme or another appropriate scheme.

If you are concerned about the possibilty of a advertisement/banner appearing, then please suggest ways in which funds can be raised. As I have mentioned to many people today, the ST forum is designed for topics/discussions such as this. Please feel free to air your concerns & offer your suggestions there as well.

Some people have criticised the ST today but few have offered to help try & improve things constructively. The ST is made up of supporters who feel passionately for this club & want to make things work better.

It seems to me that mr Lansdown has been a bit shroud here, i look at it like this

over the past 6-12 mths S.l has been distanceing himself from the forum either by not answering questions or being flipent in his replies (yes i know some stupid posts deserved this) he has often said that a lot of other clubs don't have such a forum and he has even stated that the forum is a breading ground for trouble,so what does he do,he hands it over to S.T in a way he knows will not go down to well with forum users ie the underhand way it was dealt with.He also knows that the boards need to be funded and that there is not a chnace in hell of the S.T members letting thier money fund this when it is ment to be aiming for a board seat. it seems to me also that Jay is unsure of which way to proceed with regards of funding from the above post.

so IMO one of these has happened

1/ S.L just wanted rid......

If this is the real outcome then it dosent bow well for the future of the S.T or even the trust that should be between S.L and the S.T

2/ S.L handed the boards over to the S.T in good faith

Well this is not good for the S.T as it seems to me they have taken it over with no clear direction on the way to proceed forward

I don't doubt the S.T means well but could you have just tryed running before you could walk ?

All this is my opinion and look forward to you slating me for it

come on you reds easy 3pts today

[tompo]

It seems to me that mr Lansdown has been a bit shroud here, i look at it like this

over the past 6-12 mths S.l has been distanceing himself from the forum either by not answering questions or being flipent in his replies (yes i know some stupid posts deserved this) he has often said that a lot of other clubs don't have such a forum and he has even stated that the forum is a breading ground for trouble,so what does he do,he hands it over to S.T in a way he knows will not go down to well with forum users ie the underhand way it was dealt with.He also knows that the boards need to be funded and that there is not a chnace in hell of the S.T members letting thier money fund this when it is ment to be aiming for a board seat. it seems to me also that Jay is unsure of which way to proceed with regards of funding from the above post.

so IMO one of these has happened

1/ S.L just wanted rid......

If this is the real outcome then it dosent bow well for the future of the S.T or even the trust that should be between S.L and the S.T

2/ S.L handed the boards over to the S.T in good faith

Well this is not good for the S.T as it seems to me they have taken it over with no clear direction on the way to proceed forward

I don't doubt the S.T means well but could you have just tryed running before you could walk ?

All this is my opinion and look forward to you slating me for it

come on you reds easy 3pts today

I think that most of the points you have raised have probably been dealt with elsewhere in this thread, most notably by Milo.

My understanding is that the club are paying for the forum for 6 months after which the Trust will need to decide what it intends to do. Basically there are two options

(a) the Trust decides it does not want to run the forum and someone else will need to step in or

(b) the Trust will stick with the Forum but will need to fund it.

If the Trust chooses option (b) then you can be assured that no decisions on funding will be taken lightly but they need to be taken by the Board of the Trust once it is elected. There is plenty of time to discuss this matter in full and I am sure that it will be given the attention it deserves.

My personal preference would for the forum to be self funded, either through sponsorship or some form of advertising. Again personally, I would not have any problem with any money raised over a break even figure going to the Trust. It is a not for profit organisation and any money raised in this way would ultimately go to the club.

I have to stress that these are my personal thoughts and I am sure that any decisions taken will be taken in the proper manner, by the proper people.