Forum / Boardroom Changes

[windy]

Here's my take on this:

Rather than call it a "trade member" they should be called "Web site sponsor"

Existing "Speed series sponsors" should remain club sponsors. continuing to have access to club activities such as Stoneleigh show and the web site.

To attract "web site sponsors" you need forum users, both members and non members. To put off guests or non members by an expiring trial period is not going to be good for the sponsors because not so many people will be able to view the site.

I'd like to suggest at the top of the main forum index page you have a link button logo to each "speed series sponsor" and each "web site sponsor". The "speed series sponsor", if they are paying more, could have a larger logo than a "web site sponsor".

Have a look at www.turbosport.co.uk to see how this is laid out. It puts the sponsors all nicely together on one page and makes it easy for forum users to access the companies for parts / services / discounts etc as recommended by the club. Incidently this club gets is revenue solely from web site sponsors and from forum users who may voluntarily choose to pay a sub and therefore become a member. It seems to work, maybe it could be the same for the WSCC?

[GreigM]

ah well ........... to adjust an old saying of horses and water ...............

you can lead someone to a post but you cannot make them read

I'm starting to think you are not making the effort to read the well formed counter-arguments here.

[mikef]

My opinion for what it’s worth. I worked for a national trade association with some 8000 member companies running of the order of 96,000 vehicles. They each paid fairly hefty membership fees and there was always the constant problem of what access non-members should have to meetings/special offers/technical advice etc etc. If one refused to deal with them as non-members, it was unlikely they would ever become members. Conversely, we were always on the look-out for new members. Thus, an immediate conflict.

Not one of the arguments put so far is new to me and I do not think there is any black and white answer to the problem.

We are a very diverse club with members from all walks of life connected by fact of owning or having an interest in Westfields. We elect a committee to oversee the running of the club. I must assume they have the interest of the club at heart and I must assume they have given the proposed changes a lot of thought.

The idea of a trade member is sound (we used to call it Associate Member and it was taken up in large numbers by suppliers etc). The key was at what level to pitch the charge to make it attractive to them. I don’t think for a club of this size that £120 is excessive and that suppliers could easily recoup that from increased business. If it is excessive, we will soon know because of the lack of take-up.

We must let non-members have some access (see 1st para) – the key is how much access in order to avoid upsetting the existing members and I think the committee have got it just about right. Again, only time will tell.

I am happy to receive PMs from non-members but I will treat them rather more circumspectly than I would a PM from an existing member.

None of the proposed changes is irreversible. Yes – the committee must take note of and consider all the counter arguments but at the end of the day they must make a decision. I do not envy them in this process.

Whatever they do, they are not going to please everyone and everyone has the option of voting with their feet.

As others have said, might it be an idea to let this run and see what the outcomes are?

[Fat Albert]

As a former Westfield owner & club member, who has remained an almost daily viewer and at least weekly contributor, I value, not just the information and knowledge available on this site but also the exchange of views and camaraderie that brings me back, repeatedly.

I have myself specialist knowledge in my field and freely share it, where appropriate, it's disappointing that I wont be able repay those who've given me useful tips in future. How does preventing people such as myself from interacting with the membership and sponsors benefit either the boardroon or the WSCC? I suggest it will not benefit either, it will, however, remove a small part of the workload from those that manage the site and remove the possibility of workload affecting club officers.

In short, it benefits those that run the message board and club rather than the club members, please remember that absolutely everywhere in life, blanket rules benefit those that make blankets

Now climbing off the soapbox, I'd like to thank those that rarely get thanked, such as the site author, moderators and especially contributors, for what has been a generally a very pleasant place to spend a few minutes most days.

So long, I'll be about until my posting privileges are removed, after that there seems less purpose in returning

[XTR2Turbo]

Here's my take on this:

EFA lets just charge to read your build thread -- that should up takings

[pete g]

EFA lets just charge to read your build thread -- that should up takings

pmsl :d :d :d :d

[Norman Verona]

FA makes the point that I was trying to make.

Sometimes non members bring so much they're worth keeping on. Problem is some just cause havoc and do so much damage and cause so much work for the committee that it spoils it for everyone else,

It's impossible to deal with. You either run round putting out the fires or you chuck all non members out.

[Cleggy the Spyder Man]

Problem is some just cause havoc and do so much damage and cause so much work for the committee that it spoils it for everyone else,

hang on that sounds like a few members I can think of

[Norman Verona]

Yes, but they pay for the priviledge of being a pain.

I'm a good example.

[Rory's Dad]

I'm going to say it again - lets proceed with the other changes (provided we agree) and park this business of bulk buys for the time being. I'm not saying the committee has got this wrong but there are a number of well-respected members who say they have. We are heading I fear into a "my dad's bigger than your dad" arguement. Let's give ourselves (and our committee) sometime to (re)think all of this. :)

Rory's Dad

[Norman Verona]

Martin, not sure right or wrong is the issue. The committee feel that BBs need the protection of the club. That is in the members interest.

As you say let it run and let's review it in a few months time.

[Rory's Dad]

Just to be pedantic ( )what I meant was that the other changes could be made now and the BB's left as they are for the time being.

Rory's Dad

[Norman Verona]

Ah, I see. Don't think they'll go for that.

Now that it's been agreed that the stuff we want from a supplier will not cost the supplier I think it's a big step forward.

I hope the committee see that we now need a new forum for Trade Members to advertise they're "special offers". Maybe we also need a new forum for member generated and approved BB's.

Not sure about separating all my nonsense from Westfield nonsense . I would have thought that we may need a page for photos and videos of blats, trips and non techie stuff for the cars.

[Mike H]

I'm lost, all this sounds like it's been decided by a committee!

[Rory's Dad]

I'm lost, all this sounds like it's been decided by a committee!

:d :d

Rory's Dad