Forum / Boardroom Changes

[Mark Stanton]

Mr Scottish Bloke can I borrow your head banging emoticon please DOH Greig with all due respect chap you didn't organise a trackday at Knockhill - the trackday was organised by a company that you contacted or possibly they contacted you ? about having a WSCC Session within it i.e it was a commercial trackday and not a WSCC Area one there is still nothing wrong if you wish to "organise" these things and email/PM/phone etc your local mates WSCC members or not to join in Knockhill is a fantastic circuit to drive and I hope everyone that has the chance enjoys themselves

[Blatman]

Am I wrong?

Yes.

But now you should run it past Nick Algar first. Copy in any other committee members you want. It isn't as complicated as the nay-sayers are trying to suggest it is.

Mark, members have never been able to advertise non members parts or cars. It's been this way for years. Why raise it now? It's not a new rule. There have been at least 7, maybe 8 AGM's where you could have raised this.

I personally don't want quality Westfield parts and cars diluted with any old detritus with people benefitting that have never put in, they just have the good fortune to know a WSCC member. What happened to "You only get out what you put in". I guess thats true only as long as you don't have money to make on the backs of others...

[ACW]

Uncomfortable, really? I suspect most members couldn't give a monkey if a member organising a BB gote something from the deal or not. Afterall they are only interested in the deal that is on the table to them, if they like it they will entre it, if not they will not. What possible concern could that be for the committee? If the deal is not good enought, members will not take it up and it will fail....self policing if you will.

So if after all of this we are now down to all BB's are vetter first, why? what are you protecting?

Mark - I guess this is something that committee and your own position are at opposite side. The club is run by members for the benefit of members. I was at my local area Christmas meet yesterday (first for a while). Seeing how Andrew Reeves and Tony Sighe as well as the other members put in their time for an excellent night. But those members put in their time gratis for the benefit of their fellow members. This is the same with the committee and all the other AOs and other club members who give up their time and effort to make the club and long shall it continue.

There have been bulk buys, where its totally up front what the organiser gets out of it. But is it in the ethos of the club? is it right ? Often these items have meant that in effect the overall cost to the company providing the bulk buy has been hundreds of pounds more expensive than it needed to be. Or put another way every member could have had a better deal. If someone is prepared to put their time and effort into a bulk buy then tats great and totally the ethos of the club. Getting 'paid' is not appropriate.

With the new forum, Non members will be able to sign up and place real ads or links to items and cars for sale in the external ads part of the site. Is this not what you are advocating ? How much is this not the same as your asking ? I have clarified this many times in this post. So the question I still havent had an answer to is how is this materially a different to what your advocating ?

I am not trying to be combative, or difficult with any of these posts, quite the opposite. The Committee decided that a single voice was needed as much as possible for these changes. But that they needed to be explained. I got that job, because fundamentally I am in the best position to explain the technical detail and how detailed stuff works on the forum. The Committee want to open up communication between AOs and the Committee, Members and the Committee. If you want to chat about this stuff PM me and I'll give you an old fashioned number to call me on.

[markcoopers]

Adrian, No need to highlight the effort members put in to running the club, i was a committee member for years and traveled the length and breadth of the country representing us as shows as no one else wanted to remember, + organise big road trips and help in the local area and help members purchase cars and have even helped the odd sponsor out as well....i am on board with that for the club, hence why i am passionate about it's future.

I doubt that any bulk buy has been more expensive than it needs be, they get offered if the people doing the offering think it is worth their while, the argument in the alternative does not exist as there is not a separate different cost based scenario to judge against... Truly if the reason for committee vetting is to judge "value" then please publish what constitutes value as i am unclear. I still can not see any reason for the committee wanting to veto BB's, and given that we have gone initially from needing to become a trade member to now needing vetting, please take the last step and drop the nonsense putting it back like it was....It was not broke and does not need any change. I have a suspicion as to why you want to veto the BB's but in the interests of fairness, please tell us why before we start rumours?

Mark and Adrian, I don't want none members to place adds, i wanted for members to be able to sell none members westfield cars or westfield parts, not any old tat. this is different from what is offered. I know it has never been the case, but following the pulling of Martin Keen's post/advert this year where we saw this as topic of debate, this was to be discussed at the Committee meeting as it was seen by many as wrong. I still maintain we should be the must go destination for anyone wishing to purchase a used westfield and if we limit the number of cars advertised, it will have a consequential knock on site traffic and thus potential membership and even sponsor value. It was to be debated and having canvased popular opinion prior was to be carried.....so what changed why not allow this....I keep asking and know one wants to say why not? So if you see what is being offered today as the same, why not allow it? I assume from your point adrian that this will now be allowed?

[Captain Colonial]

Two scenarios for illustration purposes only, neither of which are case studies but are compltely realistic situations which the committee knows have occurred in similar circumstances in the past.

In both scenarios, economies of scale come into play. Manufacturers achieve lower production costs through economies of scale by producing large enough numbers of a finished product to lower production costs by doing continuous runs and not needing to change production line tooling and setup, and commanding larger discounts from their suppliers by ordering necessary components in bulk. This lowers their overall production per unit cost, which is a savings that can be passed on (if so desired) to the consumer in a lower selling cost.

So let's take a fictious but realistic situation, one with entirely realistic numbers (I have a great deal of experience from the manufacturing and sales side of the fence, and i can assure you these numbers are entirely realistic, if not undervalued on the profit side). Let's call it ABC Transmissions. They make a special gearbox that boardroom members will be interested in. It costs £700 to produce one off, and the normal selling price is £1,000 on that basis, but if they can make ten or more, their production unit cost is £500 each, and they are willing to make a reduced profit of £250 each, selling it for £750

Scnario 1: Member approaches gearbox company with interest from ten other members to buy a gearbox if a deal can be done. So that's £7,500 in sales revenue and a production cost of £5,000, and a profit of £2,500 for the company or as stated before, £250 per gearbox which is the minimum profit the company is willing to take at this point, but no selling price is agreed yet.

Either the company or the member proffers the idea that the organising member will get the eleventh one for free. This eleventh gearbox still costs the company £500 to produce, which must be funded from somewhere internally. There are only two possibilities - either the company charges the ten paying members an extra £50 and raises the price to £800 each to cover this £500 production cost of the free gearbox for the organiser; or the company swallows the £500 production cost, which could have been neogiated to be split eleven ways and therefore reduced the selling price from £750 to £704.55, an extra savings of £45.45 per each of the eleven benefiting members. Even better, 10 x £750 = £7,500 and divided by 11 members getting a gearbocx = £681 each member pays per gearbox.  The committee was unanimous in feeling that the former was wrong and against the ethos of the club, whereas the latter was and equally benefitted everyone involved in the deal.

Scenario 2: Same situation - company demands non-refundable £200 deposit per transmission from all ten members before it will accept an order, and specify that if orders are not purchased, unit price will increase or deposits forfeited. All ten members pay deposit, production slot is booked, components for manufacture ordered, and everything heads towards production. One member's personal circumstances, through no fault of their own, change prior to completion and purchase, and they can no longer pay for the gearbox, so drop out and no other member wants to step in. Factory can either no longer achieve economies of scale, or they do not wish to hold specialist gearbox in stock, so are faced with either increasing selling prices or invoking cancellation clause - either way, members pay more or lose deposit. Member whose circumstances changed through no fault of his own then becomes a pariah and is ostracised. This situation is obviously detrimental to members and club.

Both of these scenarios, as well as a variety of other negative scenarios, are partly why the committee was unanimous in their desire to make bulk buys safe and fair, and within the ethos of the club.

It was considered, debated, and discussed between committee members for many hours. The decision was an easy and obvious one for the committee - choosing the delivery system to ensure it works has been anything but easy, laboured over extensively and adjusted, and may still need tweaking as time goes on. But the committee is unified and unanimous in their opinion that bulk buys in the previous format were open to the very real possibility of unfairness and / or harm to members, both purchasers and organisers, and were not in keeping with the ethos of the club, and could not continue in their current format. As has been said, bulk buys will still take place to the benefit of members, and we should now run with this for a period of time to see if adjustments are needed - but although the committee knows not everyone will agree, we cannot go back to a system where the benefits of the members are not equal for all or their interests are put at risk - that is not what this club is about.

[chazpowerslide]

I am not going to comment on the rest of the debate, I have made my views clear and I do not think it productive to re-engage in that argument.

However.................

On "free" members and the allowance - personally I think the free-loading should have been stopped many many years ago - if forum users care so much about the WSCC then let them pay their membership fee like so many others - this club as friendly as it is does dot run on fresh air and needs money just like you me and every other club

No offence intended Mark but some personal observations.

I and I'm sure many others on here (members and non members) really object to the term "freeloader" being used to stereotype boardroom users.

This is a term that you and others freely use and it is extremely offencive, particularly when it comes from WSCC club officials.

The WSCC has offered the facility for non members to use the WSCC boardrooms long term and not become members for a long period of time therefore these people are hardly "freeloaders", they are/have been taking what has been freely offered by the WSCC.

Many of them have contributed a great deal in terms of input to discussion and expert comment on the WSCC boardrooms over the years.

Stand back and think of the impact your words may potentially be having on anybody looking in and considering becoming a member and what they may think.

Prejudice springs to my mind..................

You have been involved in the club many many years Mark, how many "freeloaders" are your personal friends with whom you share WSCC history?

Do we now label anybody on their 30 day trial a "freeloader" and subject them to the same shoddy treatment that we have subjected so many other "freeloaders" to in the past.

Well, they are not members are they, so who cares if we hurt their feelings?

Business as normal for some on here then, no change in attitude, stuck in our old ways, same old, same old.

Is this how we really want to be seen as a club that is struggling for membership?

Is our shop window as appealing as possible?

Some thoughts for you (please indulge me)

We the WSCC are so proud of the showing at Stoneleigh that we can amass over 250 cars on the WSCC external stand.

I just wonder how many of these are "freeloaders" (non members) who added to the spectacle that we photographed and published in WW as a shining example of how good and popular the WSCC is.

Do we now employ the WSCC Police on parking duty at Stoneleigh and tell anybody who is a "freeloader" to park elsewhere. (after all they have not contributed to the cost of the WSCC presence at the show so what entitlement to they have to park on OUR stand?)

Would they be likely to want to join the WSCC if we did this?

Do the AO community now tell anybody who is a non member who wants to join in on a blat that "freeloaders" are not allowed?

I'd take a guess that at least 15-20% of people who regularly support the AOs by turning up to area events are non members (oh sorry "freeloaders" )

Do we really want the AO community to check members off to a membership list before they are entitled to sit in the pub and take part in an area meeting?

I think that some still (misguidedly) regard that membership of the WSCC is an essential part of the ownership of a Westfield, that we are indispensable to the Wetfield owner and every Westfield owner needs the WSCC.

Well, wakey wakey chaps this is NOT the case we as the WSCC have to compete for the £30 fee to join and then we have to provide value for money, great service and a good time to get repeat business.

Westfield owners do not NEED the WSCC, the decline in membership clearly shows that WE NEED THEM.

We should be doing all we can to encourage all the "freeloaders" to join up not marginalising them.

Times have changed Mark and unless we change with them the writing on the wall is there for us all to see.

Your position in the club is to engage with potential sponsors and show that we are worth investing in long term, you are a PR man for the WSCC.

Please think about what you say and how you say it in the public domain and how it makes us all look.

Chaz.

[Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman]

Here, here.

before the word freeloaders is used again either jokingly or seriously, I strongly recommend you take a look round a few other specialist car forums and see how the WSCC is starting to be perceived.

while on, for example the Locost forum, (and there are others). I suggest also checking out the quality and depth of technical knowledge of a huge number of the members. I recall when some of our technical threads came vaguely close in terms of numbers of very knowledgable people.

One of the ironies is, those threads are full of some of the very same people that used to be members one here. (Paid ones too) That have voted with their feet.

[ACW]

ENOUGH ALREADY PLEASE........

 

@markcoopers - What the committee are proposing is clear. Its close enough to what you want with minimal areas of grey. If a member advertises non member stuff. The mods will probably move it to the Extrernal Ads section anyways. But we dont want that to be the case we want the non member to sigh up for trail membership.

 

If you have suspisions and accusations of the committee - then can I suggest if you have the clubs interest at heart you dont start rumours (oooh scary) but you put them to us here. Ive no idea what your on about. I know that you like many here have put a lot of time into the club - and it why I am sure you agree no members should put in thier time organisinig a bulk buy to benefit from one free for them.

 

@Chaz - I fyou have an issue with Mark, can I suggest you take it up personally with him via PM or preferably give him a call. The club owes a great debt of gratitude to the Stanton family over the years (as amy other indivuals). People will not pay for things if there is no reason for them to do so. This might be that they derive no benefit from the club as you suggest, or of course it might be because they dont have to. We have simplified sign up, we have provided a complete range of features for trial members to try before sign up. We provide an extended trial period for a tenner. Shortly we will provide build blog areas and picture galeries for members as additional features.

 

You wont be surpirsed to know that I believe that club members do want an need the WSCC. Stonleigh wont happen without the clubs members putting in the effort and the club subs paying the fiscal requirements of such an event as just one example.

 

Lets see how it pans out............

[Mark Stanton]

Chaz - if you have a problem with me using a word that is contained within the english dictionary then contact me direct - I do take exception when you infer I have personal friends that may be freeloading - just for your info not that it is anything to do with your goodself but I have friends from all walks of life, ages, colours, creeds, gender, different sexual preference - none of whom could ever be accused of free-loading

[Norman Verona]

I too am guilty of using that word. However, in mitigation, your honour, I was referring to a non-member who deliberately went out of his way (twice)m to wind up those whom were trying to help him on a technical matter.

 

This is the "freeloading" that needs stopping. I was so pizzed off that I considered no longer offering any technical advice, to members or non-members.

 

If a non-member needs continuing technical advice then go to another forum or pay the £30 membership fee.

 

Whilst I'm here I think the committee could be clearer about trade membership. I think it'll end up as a "special offers" forum, rather than a genuine bulk buy where a member wants something and get another 9 (or whatever) to club together to get a better price.

 

As far as the organising member getting something for his trouble I can only state (on oath) that I paid the full price for my bulk buy goods. I made not a penny, in fact probably lost money paying for the phone calls to China. Lynne and my time probably ran into hundreds of hours.

 

It's called "clubbing together"

[Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman]

So, trade membership is now available in the on line shop; who's gonna be the first?         

[ACW]

We have a few already - but they wanna pay by cheque so Scott is sorting them out.

[Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman]

Great news Adrian. Shouldn't you be getting some kip?

[Captain Colonial]

We have a few already - but they wanna pay by cheque so Scott is sorting them out.

Yep, lots of interest and support, been on the phone to all of them and walking them through it, you should start seeing them pop up in the week.

[chazpowerslide]

Chaz - if you have a problem with me using a word that is contained within the english dictionary then contact me direct - I do take exception when you infer I have personal friends that may be freeloading - just for your info not that it is anything to do with your goodself but I have friends from all walks of life, ages, colours, creeds, gender, different sexual preference - none of whom could ever be accused of free-loading

 

I publicly apologise if you feel insulted by my last post Mark.

 

I began the post "No offence intended" and absolutely none was, at all, whatsoever.

Neither did I infer that you had personal friends who "freeloaded" at the club's expense in any way whatsoever.

If that was your inference from that single sentence I am genuinely very sorry you interpreted that way.

It was not a personal dig Mark, neither was the rest of the post to either you or the rest of the committee. 

Please read what was posted in the context of the whole post.

You and I have known each other for a long time Mark, you know me well enough to know that I am not one to insult, infer of be nasty.

You know that is not in my nature and my history with the WSCC shows that clearly.

I do not have a problem with you Mark, never have, and hopefully never will have.

 

 

ENOUGH ALREADY PLEASE........

 

 

@Chaz - I fyou have an issue with Mark, can I suggest you take it up personally with him via PM or preferably give him a call. The club owes a great debt of gratitude to the Stanton family over the years (as amy other indivuals). People will not pay for things if there is no reason for them to do so. This might be that they derive no benefit from the club as you suggest, or of course it might be because they dont have to. We have simplified sign up, we have provided a complete range of features for trial members to try before sign up. We provide an extended trial period for a tenner. Shortly we will provide build blog areas and picture galeries for members as additional features.

 

You wont be surprised to know that I believe that club members do want an need the WSCC. Stonleigh wont happen without the clubs members putting in the effort and the club subs paying the fiscal requirements of such an event as just one example.

 

Lets see how it pans out............

 

Adrian, I hope the first part of this post clarifies my feelings towards Mark (and indeed the rest of the committee)

His history, reputation and standing with the WSCC was never under debate or question as far as I was concerned.

From our recent conversation I know that you and the committee are working hard at converting the forum users to membership and due to that I deliberately didn't get involved in the rights or wrongs of the debate and neither do I now.

I fully realise and understand the thinking behind the moves and the reasons why they have been done.

I also understand that more work is currently being done in other areas to improve the member offering, all very welcome and beneficial to the membership.

 

In writing the last post I did not seek to re-open the debate on the changes as to do so now I believe is counter productive.

As you rightfully say, it's not a right or wrong answer debate, if it does not work it can be tweaked and we now ought to see how it pans out.

 

The last post I did was to illustrate how we as a club, member, AO and committee are perceived by our potential customers and weather or not due to that perception we get their custom.

 

Again to both Adrian and Mark, if you found my last post offensive you both have my most sincere apologies, it was not meant in that way.

 

Respectfully.

Chaz