This is a free to air piece. It won’t deter me from my course of writing only for those who appreciate this forum and are willing to support it. For 7,000 or so free-loading readers even 1.5p per day is too high a price to pay. I thought my value proposition would be compelling. Not for the first time I was wrong.
If one writes a reasonable and measured comment of criticism I will pay attention. If one engages in constructive criticism I may choose to highlight it, viz:
Best of luck, although I suspect you will be saying goodbye to most of your readers and, therefore, most of your sources. People give inside information to bloggers because they want to see it in the public domain.
I suspect you have the wrong idea about internet funding. Just because someone gives you 20 pounds month (240 pounds a year!) does not mean everyone will be willing to do that. People fund bloggers because they want to feel like they belong – like they have some kind of stake in it.
They don’t do it because they want to feel like a customer, buying specific articles. Models of selling specific articles have always failed. And you are right, most readers of blogs are unwilling to pay – the free riders. But you need them to get the volume to encourage sources and encourage benefactors. Otherwise you just have a private group of like-minded individuals working as an echo chamber.
Sincerely best of luck, but I think this approach will kill your blog.
This comment was written by Salted Popcorn, who like the estimable The Mensch has been with our site from the beginning. Unlike The Mensch he has not been prepared to financially support our site, but this does not in any way invalidate his perspective.
If one takes a closer look, the following resonates:
But you need them (the free riders) to get the volume to encourage sources and encourage benefactors.
As there is no advertising on this site – I’m open to offers from readers who wish to promote their businesses – I’m not constrained by hits. However hits are a form of approval and a barometer of how well my pieces are being received, or not as the case may be. I will tackle any topic or any individual if I have cause, but if I target the SNP contributions fall off like snow from a dyke in Spring. If I were a Celtic supporting advocate of independence I would not have to resort to extreme measures to maintain this site.
I have no political agenda, no axe to grind. The idea of being united with the bitter bigots of Northern Ireland, the DUP and their like, is anathema to me. Their support of The Tories sticks in my craw. I would welcome a fault line developing between North and South and the odious former being drawn by tidal forces to the most barren outcrop of North America where they could sit around all day on their imported blue grass painting ferns red white and blue and delivering tub-thumping hate speeches from their Orange Lodge pulpits. They are a truly evil sect. As I stated in my previous piece (that no-one has read) if your local Muslim shopkeeper rocked up to his mosque’s pulpit and engaged in hate speech he would be on a fast track to an appointment with Police Scotland and a prolonged stay at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. However if you were to emulate his hate speech in an Orange Lodge, the police in the audience would applaud you. As a minimum they would not arrest you. Police tasked with addressing these images from an Orange Lodge fancy dress competition failed to recognise the offence.
I’m not a Unionist. I had three reasons to vote against independence, viz the economy, the economy and the economy. Swinney’s leaked white paper swayed me. Would I like to give Arlene Foster a piece of my mind? Absolutely! I would form an orderly queue behind Phil Macgiollabhain. But if an unholy alliance keeps rickets from Scottish children’s doors, I will always side with the young Scots.
Everyone wants to be popular, and I’m no different. However I am much more hated than I am admired. I did not set out to be loved or despised. I set out to right wrongs, be it the conviction of Ched Evans, the death of Madeleine McCann or the industrial cheating by RFC. According to one comment I am despised in equal measure by Phil Mac and James Forrest but I have no way of knowing if the bearer of bad news is in their confidence or part of the concerted campaign to shut me down. I will be accused of Crying Wolf by the overwhelming majority of 7,000 free riders but I have never been closer to walking away as I was yesterday. The insidious hatred, the threats to gang rape my young children, the constant carping about me being an absent father and my former wife being a taig whore, takes its toll. As do the credible death threats from three Orange Lodges which harbour UVF and UDA murder squads.
Surely a smaller private club where these white trash malcontents are turned away at the door would be better for me and concomitantly better for my readers? I will welcome 1,000 to 1,500 as a reader demographic as I will know that they might not necessarily agree with me, but at least they will be on my side. They will be valued members of the Sitonfence Speakeasy. A forum for the informed.
When I return to SP’s point I am prepared on this occasion to grasp the nettle:
Petition to Celtic to seek information from the SFA with regard to their investigation into the processing of the application from Rangers FC for a UEFA Licence in 2011.
It is now over 22 weeks since the SFA announced they were to ask the SFA Compliance Officer to investigate the circumstances surrounding the processing of a UEFA license application from Rangers FC in 2011.
Interested supporter parties are wondering if the SFA are now themselves in breach of the following Judicial Panel Protocol (JPP) Founding Principle 2.2.
2. Founding Principles
2.2 Principle 1 – Economic and expeditious justice. The objective of the Protocol is to secure the Determination of disciplinary proceedings arising in respect of Association Football and that Decisions are made economically and expeditiously in a fair manner. Tribunals appointed from the Judicial Panel may impose reasonable procedural requirements on Parties to ensure that matters are dealt with economically and expeditiously.
Even allowing for
· any complexity of the issue,
· the need to observe due process,
· and the consequences arising,
The signatories to this petition, drawn from across the Scottish football supporters’ spectrum who value sporting integrity and fair play rules intended to uphold it, request that Celtic FC, in light of JPP Principle 1 (2.2) and as the club who may have been denied access to the Champions League as a result of any failings in the process in 2011, seek clarification from SFA on
· where matters currently stand in the JPP process,
· when the total JPP process, including investigation and any referral to a JPP Tribunal, will be concluded.
If you believe the SFA have had more than enough time to conclude their task or a responsibility to provide an update in light of 2.2 Principle 1 then please sign …..
Patience is evidently wearing thin. For many this is a binary issue. Rangers executives including the SFA’s very own Andrew Dickson lied to a committee chaired by Rod Petrie to gain a UEFA licence. Rangers owed HMRC £2.8m. This quantum has never been paid.
In the Craig Whyte trial, testimony under oath confirmed that the debt had crystallised prior to the 31st March cut-off. The following day Alastair Johnston confirmed that he had no idea of how this sum would be paid, if ever.
Regan’s claim that the overdue payable had not crystallised was exposed as a barefaced lie. He also attempted to hide behind the cut-off date passing the buck to UEFA.
If, as is likely, Dickson lied to a committee that he himself was a member of, his position at the member club and the SFA is untenable. Given that Petrie chaired that committee, his position is also untenable.
However it does not end there. Celtic could sue the SFA for depriving them of circa £30m of revenue via their negligence and/or an overbearing desire to assist a member club to the obvious disadvantage of another. Rangers would be at the very least an interested party in this law suit.
Lawwell has a fiduciary duty to act. He answers to his stakeholders. But the conspicuous absence of white smoke from Hampden might lead a cynic to conclude that the SFA are shredding the evidence and conducting a whitewash that Lord Nimmo Smith, the doyen of debriefed colleagues and their catamites, would be proud of.
Rangers and the SFA have been caught bang to rights here. One is no longer with us. The other is hanging by a spider’s web. It behoves Lawwell to take a broom to this odious organ. Or would he prefer a Trigger’s Broom solution of a strong Rangers, as is the case with the SFA, where bending over backwards for the former club and new club is an unwritten rule?
Alan McRae took his tie out of his soup to expound on the advantages of a strong Rangers. I assume he was referring to the new club playing at Ibrox and not Cove Rangers.