Funding

TrisidiumPosted on10:30 am - May 28, 2015

sannoffymesssoitizz

There are no published details. SFM’s existence both with myself and my predecessor, has been very hand to mouth.
In fact in the first year of it’s existence, my predecessor funded the operation out of his own pocket.
When costs, particularly hosting costs, started to increase, we began putting round the hat.

We usually meet our bills from contributions, and we have around £200 in the bank which will cover our needs until the next bills fall due in July.

The business plan we are putting together will include full costings and income estimates (of a much higher order than our current operation allows)over a five year period. We are getting some help to do that from people more expert than I in that area.

StevieBCPosted on4:45 pm - May 28, 2015

1. What should go into our mission statement?

Maybe in general terms, not disimilar to the SFA’s – as we wouldn’t be here if the Hampden blazers were effectively delivering.

I suppose where we came from originally on RTC was to call out RFC/TRFC and the SPL/SFA. Inevitably that has been generally negative.

We should be promoting Scottish football first and foremost,and at all levels not just the SPL, IMO.

We should be all inclusive – good and bad.[Which I think we are.]

We should still be monitoring Scottish football governance and clubs’ behaviour, and hopefully if/when the Ibrox saga comes to an end, this element of the purpose of SFM will dwindle.

Just some ideas…

Bayview GoldPosted on2:33 am - Jun 2, 2015

with respect to the mission statement, without going into the actual statement itself (although there are many online generators to play with 🙂 ) one aim, if the ‘site’ is to transition to a news gathering and generating site is for representation on MSM outlets, there are many cases where fuzzy definitions or downright falsehoods could have been corrected with a well placed quote from TSFM, after all looking at the quality of the ‘talking heads’ supposedly giving expert opinion there are many on here who could have provided deeper insight. Rather than fight the MSM the TSFM should embrace the outlet they provide to wider audiences, I look forward to the day that a TSFM rep is on one of the panels to engage directly. Also reaching out to MSM journalists in a collaborative fashion rather than criticism may help gain exposure. Have podcasts where MSM journalists are invited and not just the converted.

I understand the anonymity issues that we all raise but to move to what is described there has to be some level of transparency and accessibility.

Further re the mission, while the move to become a more traditional news outlet seems attractive, the potential downside here is that it is a very crowded arena, one of the plus’es of the original RTC/TSFM was that both were differentiated in their aims from most other outlets. I feel that TSFM should focus on what should its core differentiation be from all other outlets otherwise it can quickly get lost among many other online ‘fanzines’ this could then form the heart of the mission statement and be used for strategic direction.

Further separation of the comments from the content should be considered, there are many who have been blocked, discouraged because in the current format there is no alternative to keep a topic alive. In a rolling news format comments can have a bit more leeway and comment threads can be locked without losing ongoing interaction. Have columns for worthy ‘comments’ and leave the chatter to the true comment section. (maybe even a max word limit to encourage long posts to become actual posts not tagged on as comments)

re funding: essentially for a self sustaining long term model there are only two feasible sources: advertising/sponsorship and/or subscription. My strong preference is for the former, as much as I hate online ads, but in reality subscription, especially if a paywall is implemented will limit exposure and engagement.

Sponsorship may be a good middle ground, especially if connected to the ethical part of the TSFM mission. Now may be a good time for this with the FIFA scandals and a general groundswell throughout the Footballing world for better oversight.

Failing the ethical approach maybe it could be sponsored by the British Meat Processors Association “TSFM sponsored by the BMPA, preferring meat over succulent lamb since 2012” or “TSFM where no cows are sacred” :irony:

TrisidiumPosted on1:45 pm - Jun 14, 2015

Our plans are pressing ahead, and as you will see over the course of the next few days, SFM radio will be tested with a pilot programme, and some trial ads will appear on the site.

We have decided NOT to seek startup funds at the moment for the following reasons;

1. We have no idea right now what return investors can expect on any investment they make, so it would be dishonest for us to speculatively produce a prospectus which promised great things.

The advertising initiative needs some time to settle down before we can extrapolate future revenues, and our increased content, will hopefully assist that process. The revenue/content relationship is a financial chicken and egg situation of course, but hopefully subscriptions and donations will allow us to get that process established, before the end of summer when we should have a clearer picture upon which to build a prospectus.

2. Our over-riding aim in this venture is not to make profit – it is to make a difference. Accordingly we need to stretch the envelope a bit on our own before looking outwardly (if at all).

3. A start-up finding could mean that we have tens, or even hundreds of shareholders (we would I think have to incorporate) with all of the potential administration and communication problems that might entail.

4. We need to rebrand properly before asking people for funds. That process is underway and more information will be available on that soon.

We will be inviting some people to join our advisory board over the summer, but that is not so urgent until we are absolutely sure we require outside funding.

If our current donation levels can be maintained, and some extra funds are acquired via advertising, we will hopefully have the required cash-flow to see us increase content significantly, meet our bills and have a clearer picture of what we have to offer to investors.

As ever, we are keen to hear from any of you who think this strategy is flawed. I have no particular business expertise, and whilst I am ordinarily disposed to go for the big play, I take the view that this is the more pragmatic course of action for now.

TrisidiumPosted on3:33 pm - Jun 16, 2015

Redlichtie,
My intention was not to eschew profit altogether, just that it is not the over-riding aim.
Outside investors may exert pressure to make it exactly that, so the feeling is that we should resist that as much as possible.

For example, I would like to think that we will pay anyone who we employ a minimum of the living wage. Not a profit-slanted policy exactly, but one we feel is important.

I think we have to find investors who understand that Content is King in enterprises like these.

TrisidiumPosted on12:29 am - Jun 23, 2015

£300 raised so far. Thanks to all.

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:21 am - Jun 24, 2015

One off Donation made in lieu of subs via temporary paypal account. (Can’t bring myself to get along with paypal on an ongoing basis : they belong to the forces of darkness imo.) …shudders
As a result, I must now go off and click on some ads for russian dating sites/ ambulance chasing lawyers to restore a bit of (comparative) moral rectitude to proceedings. 😆

Thanks RLD. The PayPal issue can be a thorny one. From our point of view is is I think the least, fuss, lowest cost option available to us. We will be looking at alternatives soon though. Once again, thanks for the donation.