The future of OTF

[ursus arctos]

30 pounds was a default round number derived by dividing the estimated current hosting costs by the number of active users

It is probably a bit high, but then again not all active users will be able to contribute

[Sits]

As for reward, a link to my username on a donators page would do me. It would also motivate me to maintain/not forget my subs.

I'm still uncomfortable with any visible distinction between members. Maybe something sent to donors but not something on the board.

[Sits]

30 pounds was a default round number derived by dividing the estimated current hosting costs by the number of active users

It is probably a bit high, but then again not all active users will be able to contribute

Just as there should be an option to pay more, there should be an option to pay less.

[Sam]

I'm also against the idea of contributing, erm, contributors being visibly marked out in any way. Perhaps steveeeeeeeee's suggestion could be a goer, though.

Another thing that's just occurred to me, again as someone who has a product up on Patreon, and also as someone who, for a couple of blessedly short weeks (because I was awful at it) was a chugger half a lifetime ago, is that recurring payments make it a hell of a lot easier to budget for things. That's why charities always prefer you to give them a small monthly direct debit than a hundred quid when a TV fundraiser comes around. Obviously if people want to donate on a one-off basis as and when they can then they should, and I don't want to discourage anyone from doing so, but what will keep the board online in the long term is Snake (or whomever) knowing that (say) 100 people have paid their ?30 for this year, and unless something unforeseen comes up will be paying another ?30 next year, and so on. I think it's worth pointing that out for those who could go one way or the other.

[Guy Profumo]

https://www.onetouchfootball.com/donate/

The donation page link in case anyone is interested.

(?30 not an option? ?25 instead?)

[Antepli Ejderha]

(?30 not an option? ?25 instead?)

This is giving to WSC as I understand it.

The 30 pound figure was just a rough number given as we'd guesstimated costs to be 3k and with 100 members giving 30 pounds that gives us the costs.

All these details to be considered and decided on.

[Hot Pepsi]

Perhaps we need to have an annoying pledge drive interrupting our enjoyment of the board for an hour or so a day, but offer tote bags and mugs to people who pledge enough.

[sw2borshch]

Put me down for the ?30 a year too. I have just noticed this thread and it's come as a bit of a shock.

I am correct in thinking I shouldn't pay anything yet?

[Levin]

Yeah, this thread has left me feeling massively guilty. I'm going to be making a payment to the current system and WSC anyway as well as actually paying when we come up with a new system.

[sw2borshch]

You know, on that, I note I am being charged ?26.40 for my WSC sub, but a check on the website suggests it should be ?38. I suppose I may have locked into some kind of deal, but I would hate to think I am robbing them.

[diggedy derek]

This thread is basically like when the guy who's been organising your five-a-side game for the last five years discloses that there's some players who never coughed up and he's been quietly making up the shortfall without telling anyone

[Toby Gymshorts]

Tell me when, where and how much and I'm in.

I can't imagine a world without OTF.

[Felicity, I guess so]

I'm in, wherever and however the payments get set up.

Prepared to sell...my hamster (as in an old Mark Steel routine about leftie papers' fighting funds)

[Balderdasha]

Just made a one-off donation to WSC. Will happily pay a regular small fee for OTF (2.5-3 pounds per month sounds fine). Prefer no ads, non-mandatory contributions, free at point of access.

[Jobi1]

You know, on that, I note I am being charged ?26.40 for my WSC sub, but a check on the website suggests it should be ?38. I suppose I may have locked into some kind of deal, but I would hate to think I am robbing them.

I've been locked into a sub deal for I think at least 20 years that sees me pay even less than that, which made me feel slightly guilty and is why I was happy to join the WSC Supporters Club when they launched that last year. It all starts to add up, but I'm sure I could find another couple of quid a month to direct towards this.

[Mr Delicieux]

I'd be happy to contribute something.
It wouldn't be a great amount, I'm an overseas subscriber, and still not fully established in my new country of residence so need to take that into account.

[Greenlander]

I've been locked into a sub deal for I think at least 20 years that sees me pay even less than that, which made me feel slightly guilty and is why I was happy to join the WSC Supporters Club when they launched that last year. It all starts to add up, but I'm sure I could find another couple of quid a month to direct towards this.

I'm on the same deal, so joined the Supporters Club on the same premise.

Personally I'd balance my contributions between the two (sorry WSC), so while I guess not everyone here is in the WSC club could membership also confer a percentage towards OTF.

Or, and a big ask, but WSC manage the funds as they do now but give the option of supporters club membership including a percentage towards the upkeep of OTF or offer a subscription towards the running of the board but a percentage goes towards WSC. I don't know how these things actually work, but maybe even a sliding scale so the individial can balance their contributions between the two.

Keeps the historical links as well.

[E10 Rifle]

I've only just seen this. I'd chip in a monthly amount, and wouldn't be averse - maybe cos I've just got used to it at the Guardian - to a more upfront begging-bowl approach being splattered all over the site. Preferable to ads and to mandatory subs.

[1974ddr]

I've been locked into a sub deal for I think at least 20 years that sees me pay even less than that, which made me feel slightly guilty and is why I was happy to join the WSC Supporters Club when they launched that last year. It all starts to add up, but I'm sure I could find another couple of quid a month to direct towards this.

Me too, and me too. And me too.
Also echo E10's comment above.

[gjw100]

I'm by no means a prolific contributor and if it wasn't for some of the Music threads my visible presence would be relatively negligible, but I check in here most days just to see what's going on and I would miss OTF hugely if it were to disappear. I'd be perfectly happy to contribute towards the running costs - a monthly sum would be preferable to an annual subscription - and I agree with the consensus that this should not be mandatory. I initially found OTF through WSC but although I haven't purchased the latter for many years (or any other magazines for that matter) I think it would be good to preserve at least a token link between the two as a nod to the past.

[Capybara]

I've not read through the thread so apologies if I'm repeating anyone's point.

Is the idea that OTF is cast totally adrift from WSC? I hope that even if WSC is not paying for, nor administering ,OTF then they would still point people in this direction. Incidentally, I once suggested that there should be a link from here to the WSC site but it didn't materialise.

I actually don't know what I pay for WSC; I just renew when they ask me to, every three years, I think. But of course I'd be prepared to cough up something for this place. But then we've had this debate before and people said they would donate then and now they are admitting they didn't. And neither did I. Donations shouldn't be compulsory either - we said that before as well - but then how do we ensure the money that is needed gets paid? It's a problem I don't have an answer for.

[danielmak]

But of course I'd be prepared to cough up something for this place. But then we've had this debate before and people said they would donate then and now they are admitting they didn't. And neither did I. Donations shouldn't be compulsory either - we said that before as well - but then how do we ensure the money that is needed gets paid? It's a problem I don't have an answer for.

I'm going to suggest this but I need a giant qualifier that I'm on the fence about this suggestion. If there was a a big banner up top or happened on the login page about donating, that might help. Then if the front page listed who donated (this is the part that has me on the fence) then at least people could see if they remembered to donate. Per Capybara's post that I quoted, of course people don't donate for a variety of very good financial reasons. Then there are those of us who remember something about donating in the past, we forgot, and then nobody came back around to remind us. I know, we're not kids, but life is complicated. So, if I saw a list of screen names and did not see my name on that list, it would be a reminder and I would donate right away. Again, I'm on the fence about this because the list could read like a list of shame and that is 100% not my intention. Sometimes some of us need reminders.

Another move that would not have the same wall of shame function would be an auto-generated email with a subject line that is very clear that the total contents of the email relate to donating. Then those of us who had donated, just delete the email right away. Those of us who couldn't donate in the past but could now, would hopefully get on it. Those of us who forgot, ideally get on it. If the email is monthly, I don't think anyone would care or treat that as SPAM. I get weekly emails from an independent record store. Mostly I delete, but I'm not annoyed by the email because I like the store.

[ad hoc]

The problem with the public list of who donated is that those who couldn't donate might feel uncomfortable (to the point of not even logging on at all) and I think any model that potentially excludes people (especially on the grounds of financial wherewithal) is to be avoided.

I think some combination of a regular committed payment (perhaps monthly or annually depending on the person) plus Wikipedia style periodic funding drives is the best way to go

[Sporting]

The problem with the public list of who donated is that those who couldn't donate might feel uncomfortable

True, and even those who did donate might prefer to remain anonymous.

[Wouter D]

If the email is monthly, I don't think anyone would care or treat that as SPAM.

Yeah, no. My life is already overflowing with email as it is, and every single unsolicited email that comes on top of that makes me angry enough to start boycotting whoever sent it.