Funding

By

With respect to the mission statement, without going into the …

Comment on Funding by Bayview Gold.

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:

Recent Comments by Bayview Gold

Two wrongs and a right
Dropping out of lurking mode for a few mins to wish everyone at SFM and all contributors and lurkers a very (if belated) happy new year and a reminder to keep fighting the good fight.
Scottish football needs a Strong Arbroath, East Fife and judiciary in 2016!


Whose assets are they anyway?
RIFC are done for, the pending debts are too high, cash flow problems, no funding available and depending on various court outcomes potential large liabilities for both the asset transfer and the IPO monies. (insurance will not cover those if fraudulent)
So it is simply a matter of timing, what we are seeing with DCK & Ashley is simply a fun game of brinkmanship or ‘pass the parcel’ where DCK is desperate not to be left ‘holding the bag’ and blamed when they do go down and hoping he can goad someone else to pull the trigger and Ashley giving DCK enough rope and estimating the best time to minimise losses without being blamed.
Everything else is just a sideshow. 


The Case for a New SFA.
HirsutePursuit 14th October 2015 at 8:39 am #

Thanks HP, that answered my question,

re the IPO – that to me is the one that should have the alarm bells ringing, while the other ones may murky the waters re assets, really it is still just a squabble over which of the parties is left with a chair on the Sevco/Oldco musical chair extravaganza, the big financial threat is potentially any liability to RIFC over the IPO: £22M worth of risk.

But I’m sure if that happened DCK would just jet in with a newly opened warchest and see them right.


The Case for a New SFA.
HirsutePursuit 13th October 2015 at 8:18 pm
Allyjambo 13th October 2015 at 8:48 pm

At the risk of sounding like a broken record (ok too late 14 ) this is a very important point and the glee from supporters of the “club” over the case may be short lived. Officers of a company are in the legal sense acting for a company therefore as HP posted liability may fall on the company. This is true to an extent for any employee but much more important for officers and executives. Remember TRFC are Sevco Scotland despite what the press may lead you to believe, Sevco scotland were set up and run by CG therefore they may be liable for any misdeeds occurring while CG was in place – potential liability for a company does not end on termination of the employee.
Where I am confused (and looking for help here) is that the charges outlined so far don’t seem to be clearly aligned to any specific time frame. There are three distinct trigger events that were chock full of potential shenanigans (although TRFC seemed to stretch laws/regulations on a daily basis)

1) Purchase of RFC Ltd from Murray by Whyte & the ticketus saga
2) Purchase of the RFC assets by Sevco from D&P and the switcheroo
3) The RIFC IPO
#1 seemed to have a case pending based on earlier arrests but that seems to have gone away – is it the opinion here that 1 & 2 have now been folded together?
#3 – this one has a much bigger potential liability for RIFC – is this in any way forming part of the upcoming trial?
Each of these has distinct and different “victims” of any alleged wrong doing.
Hopefully I have steered a non-judgmental way through discussing public domain knowledge of a live proceeding!

Scottish football needs a strong something or other.


The Case for a New SFA.
neepheid 13th October 2015 at 8:06 pm

Thanks NH seems pretty clear on the guilty/not guilty aspect, good post!


About the author